Total Posts:30|Showing Posts:1-30
Jump to topic:

Are Beliefs Lies?

DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,641
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2015 5:24:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
"In religion and politics people"s beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing."
R13; Mark Twain

"When it comes to controlling human beings there is no better instrument than lies. Because, you see, humans live by beliefs. And beliefs can be manipulated. The power to manipulate beliefs is the only thing that counts."
R13; Michael Ende,

"We all ought to understand we're on our own. Believing in Santa Claus doesn't do kids any harm for a few years but it isn't smart for them to continue waiting all their lives for him to come down the chimney with something wonderful. Santa Claus and God are cousins."
R13; Andy Rooney


We've read it here so many times, it's become the norm, that one's beliefs are simply lies and the one propagating the belief is a liar. We read about this when it comes to those who state the Bible is 100% accurate or the Quran is a book of science, that evolution and cosmology are wrong. Heck, we even have a member here who believes dinosaurs are a hoax.

But, are these beliefs lies or are they somehow truths in the mind of that person, despite their beliefs misalignment with the evidence and facts to the contrary? This in stark contrast to the fact that the very same person is forced to deal with evidence and facts of another nature everyday of their lives wherein they wholeheartedly accept that evidence and facts despite rejecting others in favor of their beliefs?
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2015 11:44:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/27/2015 5:24:00 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
"In religion and politics people"s beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing."
R13; Mark Twain

"When it comes to controlling human beings there is no better instrument than lies. Because, you see, humans live by beliefs. And beliefs can be manipulated. The power to manipulate beliefs is the only thing that counts."
R13; Michael Ende,

"We all ought to understand we're on our own. Believing in Santa Claus doesn't do kids any harm for a few years but it isn't smart for them to continue waiting all their lives for him to come down the chimney with something wonderful. Santa Claus and God are cousins."
R13; Andy Rooney


We've read it here so many times, it's become the norm, that one's beliefs are simply lies and the one propagating the belief is a liar. We read about this when it comes to those who state the Bible is 100% accurate or the Quran is a book of science, that evolution and cosmology are wrong. Heck, we even have a member here who believes dinosaurs are a hoax.

But, are these beliefs lies or are they somehow truths in the mind of that person, despite their beliefs misalignment with the evidence and facts to the contrary? This in stark contrast to the fact that the very same person is forced to deal with evidence and facts of another nature everyday of their lives wherein they wholeheartedly accept that evidence and facts despite rejecting others in favor of their beliefs?

- This applies to all fields of knowledge. Unless you've done it all yourself, you don't really know it. Instead, you put your trust on others who have presumably done some of it, & you hope they know what they're talking about.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
dee-em
Posts: 6,486
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2015 3:17:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/27/2015 11:44:57 PM, Yassine wrote:
At 9/27/2015 5:24:00 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
"In religion and politics people"s beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing."
R13; Mark Twain

"When it comes to controlling human beings there is no better instrument than lies. Because, you see, humans live by beliefs. And beliefs can be manipulated. The power to manipulate beliefs is the only thing that counts."
R13; Michael Ende,

"We all ought to understand we're on our own. Believing in Santa Claus doesn't do kids any harm for a few years but it isn't smart for them to continue waiting all their lives for him to come down the chimney with something wonderful. Santa Claus and God are cousins."
R13; Andy Rooney


We've read it here so many times, it's become the norm, that one's beliefs are simply lies and the one propagating the belief is a liar. We read about this when it comes to those who state the Bible is 100% accurate or the Quran is a book of science, that evolution and cosmology are wrong. Heck, we even have a member here who believes dinosaurs are a hoax.

But, are these beliefs lies or are they somehow truths in the mind of that person, despite their beliefs misalignment with the evidence and facts to the contrary? This in stark contrast to the fact that the very same person is forced to deal with evidence and facts of another nature everyday of their lives wherein they wholeheartedly accept that evidence and facts despite rejecting others in favor of their beliefs?

- This applies to all fields of knowledge. Unless you've done it all yourself, you don't really know it. Instead, you put your trust on others who have presumably done some of it, & you hope they know what they're talking about.

Just not true. In fields of knowledge other than theology (if this can even be classified as such) there is nothing to prevent someone educating themselves to the point where they can ascertain the validity or othewise of a particular subject of interest. We have faith (confidence/trust) in experts of that field because we know that, at least in theory, we could establish the truth value for ourselves after applying sufficient diligence. Our faith (confidence) is based on the tremendous history of success for the methods used and on the integrity of the institutions involved. With theology there is no-one you can go to who has "done some of it". It's all personal testimony, hearsay, indoctrination and appeal to superstition. Religious beliefs have been overturned time and again as the churches have grudgingly had to relinquish their claims to authority. There is no education possible which could convince a rationalist like Richard Dawkins of a biblical god because religion, at its core, requires a different kind of faith - that of blind acceptance.

Your point relies on an equivocation fallacy that the faith (confidence) required in all other fields of knowledge is the same as the faith (blind acceptance) required by religious beliefs.
uncung
Posts: 3,467
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2015 5:09:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/27/2015 5:24:00 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
"In religion and politics people"s beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing."
R13; Mark Twain

"When it comes to controlling human beings there is no better instrument than lies. Because, you see, humans live by beliefs. And beliefs can be manipulated. The power to manipulate beliefs is the only thing that counts."
R13; Michael Ende,

"We all ought to understand we're on our own. Believing in Santa Claus doesn't do kids any harm for a few years but it isn't smart for them to continue waiting all their lives for him to come down the chimney with something wonderful. Santa Claus and God are cousins."
R13; Andy Rooney


We've read it here so many times, it's become the norm, that one's beliefs are simply lies and the one propagating the belief is a liar. We read about this when it comes to those who state the Bible is 100% accurate or the Quran is a book of science, that evolution and cosmology are wrong. Heck, we even have a member here who believes dinosaurs are a hoax.

But, are these beliefs lies or are they somehow truths in the mind of that person, despite their beliefs misalignment with the evidence and facts to the contrary? This in stark contrast to the fact that the very same person is forced to deal with evidence and facts of another nature everyday of their lives wherein they wholeheartedly accept that evidence and facts despite rejecting others in favor of their beliefs?

there are so many religious people ignore the error in their religious stuff. No matter the way you try to explain their false belief, they still keep believing theirs is the truth. It is the wondering fact on human being.
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2015 6:28:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/28/2015 3:17:55 AM, dee-em wrote:

Just not true. In fields of knowledge other than theology (if this can even be classified as such) there is nothing to prevent someone educating themselves to the point where they can ascertain the validity or othewise of a particular subject of interest. We have faith (confidence/trust) in experts of that field because we know that, at least in theory, we could establish the truth value for ourselves after applying sufficient diligence.

- But you wouldn't really know that, unless you try. & history has proven that humans are wrong a great deal of the time. Countless scientific claims, discoveries & theories turned out to be BS. Similarly, for all other fields of knowledge.

Our faith (confidence) is based on the tremendous history of success for the methods used and on the integrity of the institutions involved. With theology there is no-one you can go to who has "done some of it". It's all personal testimony, hearsay, indoctrination and appeal to superstition. Religious beliefs have been overturned time and again as the churches have grudgingly had to relinquish their claims to authority. There is no education possible which could convince a rationalist like Richard Dawkins of a biblical god because religion, at its core, requires a different kind of faith - that of blind acceptance.

- Again, the same applies for all fields of knowledge. Much of science, or philosophy, or history... is unreliable, inaccurate or untrue. That doesn't justify rejecting the whole thing. There is some truth & some falsehood, relatively, in all fields of knowledge.

Your point relies on an equivocation fallacy that the faith (confidence) required in all other fields of knowledge is the same as the faith (blind acceptance) required by religious beliefs.

- But you do have faith in those who subscribe to science, even though you don't really know what they supposedly know & you can't verify all their claims. It's just an unattainable position.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
dee-em
Posts: 6,486
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2015 6:50:28 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/28/2015 6:28:04 AM, Yassine wrote:
At 9/28/2015 3:17:55 AM, dee-em wrote:

Just not true. In fields of knowledge other than theology (if this can even be classified as such) there is nothing to prevent someone educating themselves to the point where they can ascertain the validity or othewise of a particular subject of interest. We have faith (confidence/trust) in experts of that field because we know that, at least in theory, we could establish the truth value for ourselves after applying sufficient diligence.

- But you wouldn't really know that, unless you try. & history has proven that humans are wrong a great deal of the time. Countless scientific claims, discoveries & theories turned out to be BS. Similarly, for all other fields of knowledge.

Countless? I don't think so. As a percentage of all scientific discoveries and the benefits thus bestowed on humanity, they would be negligible. Not only that but the same method that produced them was responsible for weeding them out, ie. science is self-correcting. Can you say the same for claims made by religion over the centuries? I struggle to find one that has held up in the face of the observation of nature.

Our faith (confidence) is based on the tremendous history of success for the methods used and on the integrity of the institutions involved. With theology there is no-one you can go to who has "done some of it". It's all personal testimony, hearsay, indoctrination and appeal to superstition. Religious beliefs have been overturned time and again as the churches have grudgingly had to relinquish their claims to authority. There is no education possible which could convince a rationalist like Richard Dawkins of a biblical god because religion, at its core, requires a different kind of faith - that of blind acceptance.

- Again, the same applies for all fields of knowledge. Much of science, or philosophy, or history... is unreliable, inaccurate or untrue.

That's an ignorant assertion, especially of science.

That doesn't justify rejecting the whole thing. There is some truth & some falsehood, relatively, in all fields of knowledge.

Please don't hide behind these vague generalizations. It's the ratio of truth to falsehood that is the issue. Would you prefer a process with a 1% success rate or one with a 95% success rate? Would you prefer the one that is self-correcting or the one which deals in absolutes and has to be dragged kicking and screaming to relinquish obviously disreputable positions after centuries of looking foolish and out of touch?

Your point relies on an equivocation fallacy that the faith (confidence) required in all other fields of knowledge is the same as the faith (blind acceptance) required by religious beliefs.

- But you do have faith in those who subscribe to science, even though you don't really know what they supposedly know & you can't verify all their claims. It's just an unattainable position.

Please look up the word 'faith'. When you do, you will see where your equivocation fallacy applies. I've explained it as well as I can. The rest is up to you.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,641
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2015 2:31:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/27/2015 11:44:57 PM, Yassine wrote:
At 9/27/2015 5:24:00 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
"In religion and politics people"s beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing."
R13; Mark Twain

"When it comes to controlling human beings there is no better instrument than lies. Because, you see, humans live by beliefs. And beliefs can be manipulated. The power to manipulate beliefs is the only thing that counts."
R13; Michael Ende,

"We all ought to understand we're on our own. Believing in Santa Claus doesn't do kids any harm for a few years but it isn't smart for them to continue waiting all their lives for him to come down the chimney with something wonderful. Santa Claus and God are cousins."
R13; Andy Rooney


We've read it here so many times, it's become the norm, that one's beliefs are simply lies and the one propagating the belief is a liar. We read about this when it comes to those who state the Bible is 100% accurate or the Quran is a book of science, that evolution and cosmology are wrong. Heck, we even have a member here who believes dinosaurs are a hoax.

But, are these beliefs lies or are they somehow truths in the mind of that person, despite their beliefs misalignment with the evidence and facts to the contrary? This in stark contrast to the fact that the very same person is forced to deal with evidence and facts of another nature everyday of their lives wherein they wholeheartedly accept that evidence and facts despite rejecting others in favor of their beliefs?

- This applies to all fields of knowledge. Unless you've done it all yourself, you don't really know it. Instead, you put your trust on others who have presumably done some of it, & you hope they know what they're talking about.

Greetings, I would like to respond to that, however it appears to be quite vague and generalizes across what appears to be everything. Can you be more specific? What fields of knowledge do you refer exactly and could you cite examples?

If for example, you refer to Science, how are there lies contained within? Why would we have to do it all ourselves if there are results of experiments to analyze? Why would a hypothesis contain the capacity to be falsifiable? I think you mentioned you have a degree in physics? If so, are you not familiar with such concepts?

Peace
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2015 8:49:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/28/2015 6:50:28 AM, dee-em wrote:

Greetings,

Countless? I don't think so.

- Think again!

As a percentage of all scientific discoveries and the benefits thus bestowed on humanity, they would be negligible.

- Much of the ideas concerning the natural world are now discarded, & much of the ideas we hold now about the natural world will be discarded in the future. More importantly, sciences are not on the same level of accuracy! Mathematics is not physics, & physics is not chemistry, & chemistry is not biology, & biology is no psychology, & so on.

Not only that but the same method that produced them was responsible for weeding them out, ie. science is self-correcting.

- Human knowledge expands. Human understanding develops, & so on. Science if just a particular case of an increasingly higher & more sophisticated human language.

Can you say the same for claims made by religion over the centuries?

- The same force that is driving natural sciences or social sciences is also driving religious sciences: Man, Intellect & Morality. Without philosophy, science would become superstition.

I struggle to find one that has held up in the face of the observation of nature.

- This is an UTTERLY stupid contention!

That's an ignorant assertion, especially of science.

- I happen to be a sorta of scientist, so...

Please don't hide behind these vague generalizations. It's the ratio of truth to falsehood that is the issue.

- No such thing in Natural Science to begin with. Science is valued by accuracy, not by truth. Different fields, different values.

Would you prefer a process with a 1% success rate or one with a 95% success rate?

- This is an exceedingly subjective measure. The same minds that produced science, produce all other fields of knowledge just the same.

Would you prefer the one that is self-correcting or the one which deals in absolutes and has to be dragged kicking and screaming to relinquish obviously disreputable positions after centuries of looking foolish and out of touch?

- This is a naive super-oversimplification!

Please look up the word 'faith'. When you do, you will see where your equivocation fallacy applies. I've explained it as well as I can. The rest is up to you.

- It is a fact that you have not tested nor verified almost the entirely of human knowledge, including all sciences. It is also a fact that unless one is personally aware of the truth of something, he can not but have faith in its truth. It is thus a fact that almost all your knowledge is faith-based.

Peace.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2015 9:16:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/28/2015 2:31:16 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:

Hello,

Greetings, I would like to respond to that, however it appears to be quite vague and generalizes across what appears to be everything.

- Indeed. Fundamentally, human understanding has its place in a language of the intellect. Sophisticated ideas come from such a language. Out understanding in the past about the World, in nature, man, mind, concepts, morality, society... was on a lower level than ours today. & that of today will probably be lower than of the future.

- Privileging natural science as though it's some special area is absurd, for its framework is part of the overall language of the human understanding & its increasing profundity, without which it'll be nothing.

Can you be more specific? What fields of knowledge do you refer exactly and could you cite examples?

- I refer to all fields of knowledge. In our worldview, knowledge is divided into 3 thresholds:
1. 'Ilm = Knowing, it's the knowledge which one sees with one's intellect as if one sees it with one's eyes. Eg. 1 + 1 = 2.
2. Tajriba = Experience, it's the knowledge which one experiences & lives. Eg. emotion, skill, reflex...
3. Riwaya = Narration, it's the knowledge that one acquires from another (without having been able to see it, or experience it).

(+) Example: the 1st threshold of Natural Sciences, for instance, would be accessible by those who are fully aware of their extents, especially the theoretical framework. The 2nd threshold would be accessible for those who experience it & experiment with it. The 3rd threshold would be accessible for all else who. Only the two first thresholds may allow a person to claim personal knowledge. Those who are not fully aware of the theoretical framework of a particular science or have not experienced its elements have a faith-based knowledge.

If for example, you refer to Science, how are there lies contained within?

- Tons of science related ideas that appeared once before are now obsolete, or just wrong. The same can be said about other areas of knowledge.

Why would we have to do it all ourselves if there are results of experiments to analyze?

- The person who performed the experiment can claim knowledge, the rest can not help but just have faith in him & his testimony.

Why would a hypothesis contain the capacity to be falsifiable?

- Falsifiability (or Verifiability) is a condition of Abductive Reasoning, without which the reasoning can not take place. If a hypothesis can not be falsified, it can not be repeated, & if it can not be repeated, we can't say anything about it's truth value. This also includes the conditions of: Simplicity, Possibility, Plausibility, & Accuracy.

I think you mentioned you have a degree in physics?

- Yes.

If so, are you not familiar with such concepts?

- What concepts!?

Peace.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,641
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2015 1:21:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/28/2015 9:16:46 PM, Yassine wrote:
At 9/28/2015 2:31:16 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:

Hello,

Greetings, I would like to respond to that, however it appears to be quite vague and generalizes across what appears to be everything.

- Indeed. Fundamentally, human understanding has its place in a language of the intellect. Sophisticated ideas come from such a language. Out understanding in the past about the World, in nature, man, mind, concepts, morality, society... was on a lower level than ours today. & that of today will probably be lower than of the future.

Greetings.

So sorry, I'm having a difficult time understanding what you mean there, what is the language of the intellect?

- Privileging natural science as though it's some special area is absurd, for its framework is part of the overall language of the human understanding & its increasing profundity, without which it'll be nothing.

I don't think anyone categorizes science as special in any way, it's simple an objective, unbiased, impartial method of learning about the world around us, and it manages to work quite well. And again, I'm not sure what you mean by it being a language of human understanding?

Can you be more specific? What fields of knowledge do you refer exactly and could you cite examples?

- I refer to all fields of knowledge. In our worldview, knowledge is divided into 3 thresholds:
1. 'Ilm = Knowing, it's the knowledge which one sees with one's intellect as if one sees it with one's eyes. Eg. 1 + 1 = 2.
2. Tajriba = Experience, it's the knowledge which one experiences & lives. Eg. emotion, skill, reflex...
3. Riwaya = Narration, it's the knowledge that one acquires from another (without having been able to see it, or experience it).

I think the first would be an objective knowledge similar to that of what science provides us in the form of knowledge and understanding, but the other two can easily be a mix of objective and subjective knowledge, which can't really be taken as a truth unless verified by the first method.

(+) Example: the 1st threshold of Natural Sciences, for instance, would be accessible by those who are fully aware of their extents, especially the theoretical framework. The 2nd threshold would be accessible for those who experience it & experiment with it. The 3rd threshold would be accessible for all else who. Only the two first thresholds may allow a person to claim personal knowledge. Those who are not fully aware of the theoretical framework of a particular science or have not experienced its elements have a faith-based knowledge.

If for example, you refer to Science, how are there lies contained within?

- Tons of science related ideas that appeared once before are now obsolete, or just wrong. The same can be said about other areas of knowledge.

Sorry Yassine, I really don't agree with that. If you have a degree in physics, you know that's not true, as well.

Why would we have to do it all ourselves if there are results of experiments to analyze?

- The person who performed the experiment can claim knowledge, the rest can not help but just have faith in him & his testimony.

But, anyone can view the results of the experiment and conduct it themselves to see if they can falsify it, that's how science works. One experiment does not make a theory out of a hypothesis.

Why would a hypothesis contain the capacity to be falsifiable?

- Falsifiability (or Verifiability) is a condition of Abductive Reasoning, without which the reasoning can not take place. If a hypothesis can not be falsified, it can not be repeated, & if it can not be repeated, we can't say anything about it's truth value. This also includes the conditions of: Simplicity, Possibility, Plausibility, & Accuracy.

But, if the hypothesis can withstand experiment after experiment and can predict accurately, then there should be no problem with accepting it.

I think you mentioned you have a degree in physics?

- Yes.

If so, are you not familiar with such concepts?

- What concepts!?

Science and how it works.

Peace.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
dee-em
Posts: 6,486
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2015 4:10:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/28/2015 8:49:17 PM, Yassine wrote:
At 9/28/2015 6:50:28 AM, dee-em wrote:

Greetings,

Countless? I don't think so.

- Think again!

As a percentage of all scientific discoveries and the benefits thus bestowed on humanity, they would be negligible.

- Much of the ideas concerning the natural world are now discarded, & much of the ideas we hold now about the natural world will be discarded in the future. More importantly, sciences are not on the same level of accuracy! Mathematics is not physics, & physics is not chemistry, & chemistry is not biology, & biology is no psychology, & so on.

Not only that but the same method that produced them was responsible for weeding them out, ie. science is self-correcting.

- Human knowledge expands. Human understanding develops, & so on. Science if just a particular case of an increasingly higher & more sophisticated human language.

Can you say the same for claims made by religion over the centuries?

- The same force that is driving natural sciences or social sciences is also driving religious sciences: Man, Intellect & Morality. Without philosophy, science would become superstition.

I struggle to find one that has held up in the face of the observation of nature.

- This is an UTTERLY stupid contention!

That's an ignorant assertion, especially of science.

- I happen to be a sorta of scientist, so...

Please don't hide behind these vague generalizations. It's the ratio of truth to falsehood that is the issue.

- No such thing in Natural Science to begin with. Science is valued by accuracy, not by truth. Different fields, different values.

Would you prefer a process with a 1% success rate or one with a 95% success rate?

- This is an exceedingly subjective measure. The same minds that produced science, produce all other fields of knowledge just the same.

Would you prefer the one that is self-correcting or the one which deals in absolutes and has to be dragged kicking and screaming to relinquish obviously disreputable positions after centuries of looking foolish and out of touch?

- This is a naive super-oversimplification!

Please look up the word 'faith'. When you do, you will see where your equivocation fallacy applies. I've explained it as well as I can. The rest is up to you.

- It is a fact that you have not tested nor verified almost the entirely of human knowledge, including all sciences. It is also a fact that unless one is personally aware of the truth of something, he can not but have faith in its truth. It is thus a fact that almost all your knowledge is faith-based.

Peace.

Hmmm. I can see that any discussion with you would be a complete waste of time given your dogmatic anti-science agenda and unwillingness to explore any alternative to your blinkered beliefs. We are done. Carry on.
onespaniard
Posts: 33
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2015 4:41:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/27/2015 5:24:00 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
"In religion and politics people"s beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing."
R13; Mark Twain

"When it comes to controlling human beings there is no better instrument than lies. Because, you see, humans live by beliefs. And beliefs can be manipulated. The power to manipulate beliefs is the only thing that counts."
R13; Michael Ende,

"We all ought to understand we're on our own. Believing in Santa Claus doesn't do kids any harm for a few years but it isn't smart for them to continue waiting all their lives for him to come down the chimney with something wonderful. Santa Claus and God are cousins."
R13; Andy Rooney


We've read it here so many times, it's become the norm, that one's beliefs are simply lies and the one propagating the belief is a liar. We read about this when it comes to those who state the Bible is 100% accurate or the Quran is a book of science, that evolution and cosmology are wrong. Heck, we even have a member here who believes dinosaurs are a hoax.

But, are these beliefs lies or are they somehow truths in the mind of that person, despite their beliefs misalignment with the evidence and facts to the contrary? This in stark contrast to the fact that the very same person is forced to deal with evidence and facts of another nature everyday of their lives wherein they wholeheartedly accept that evidence and facts despite rejecting others in favor of their beliefs? : :

Truth was never intended for those who aren't truthful. Lies are their nature.

Can you imagine a world where everyone told the truth?
Outplayz
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2015 6:20:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/27/2015 5:24:00 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
"In religion and politics people"s beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing."
R13; Mark Twain

"When it comes to controlling human beings there is no better instrument than lies. Because, you see, humans live by beliefs. And beliefs can be manipulated. The power to manipulate beliefs is the only thing that counts."
R13; Michael Ende,

"We all ought to understand we're on our own. Believing in Santa Claus doesn't do kids any harm for a few years but it isn't smart for them to continue waiting all their lives for him to come down the chimney with something wonderful. Santa Claus and God are cousins."
R13; Andy Rooney


We've read it here so many times, it's become the norm, that one's beliefs are simply lies and the one propagating the belief is a liar. We read about this when it comes to those who state the Bible is 100% accurate or the Quran is a book of science, that evolution and cosmology are wrong. Heck, we even have a member here who believes dinosaurs are a hoax.

But, are these beliefs lies or are they somehow truths in the mind of that person, despite their beliefs misalignment with the evidence and facts to the contrary? This in stark contrast to the fact that the very same person is forced to deal with evidence and facts of another nature everyday of their lives wherein they wholeheartedly accept that evidence and facts despite rejecting others in favor of their beliefs?

I do not think beliefs are lies... actually, i wish the world was only beliefs. Then, we would be interested to sit down and talk to each other about our beliefs. Yet, there is every capacity level in the books on this rock. Some people can't even think far enough to form any logical belief. Then there are the ones that take advantage of the mass that either does not have the capacity to form their own logical beliefs or someone that just jumps on the bandwagon or is too lazy to try. We also have a thing called money that plays a factor, maybe fame as well... People knowing that beliefs do feel good in the end or in regards to death. So... of course they take advantage. Bottom line i personally don't think it matters... does a person does live on is the question to me. If you live on after death are you going to be you or something else. Well, if you are something else than you are not you anymore. If you are you, then you can't be something else; obviously. So where does belief come back in... well, death hears no words, no debates, no nothing except you. When one leaves this world they are alone with themselves. What's going to happen? Are we all going to a place called heaven, hell, Valhalla, the summerlands... etc. I don't think we even think about that... all you have at death is you... so, ultimately it will either be you that lives on, something else, or nothing. I personally think the next paradise will be through the observers eyes. There is no one answer. What i believe is everyone is right in regards to their belief (who they are). Everything else is just stories our how someone else believed. Plus, paradise is subjective to a person even of the same religion. Just thinking about the implications of immortality is frightening in my opinion. How do we learn to deal with it? I come to a simple conclusion. Mortality can be used by an immortal to live experiences at the same time take a vacation from being forever. I believe this world was somewhere down the line believed. Yet, everything i said can merely be a lie to you, but that is the key... it is whatever you want it to be when it comes to you. If i believe something it only affects me. I believe i will live in an anime world from my favorite series. If i die and nothing happens...well. But, if something happens i can be happy that i at least planned for something. The world should know they can believe whatever they want when it comes to the supernatural. It is your own optimism or pessimism. Your beliefs are you. The world is torn apart bc we are forcing beliefs... of course it is... imagine someone that truly felt like they came from idk Valhalla... that is who they are and no one can change it... you are what you are; i am what i am... no one belief is right unless your belief is everyone is right.
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2015 9:16:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/29/2015 1:21:58 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:

Greetings,

So sorry, I'm having a difficult time understanding what you mean there, what is the language of the intellect?

- The language of the intellect refers to the sum of the concepts humans are continuously able to perceive & express. It makes better sense in French. I don't know the exact word in English, in French it's spelled: Langage. Le Langage de la pensee, the Discourse of Thought or something.

I don't think anyone categorizes science as special in any way, it's simple an objective, unbiased, impartial method of learning about the world around us, and it manages to work quite well.

- NO. It isn't objective, it isn't unbiased, it isn't impartial... Humans are coming up with these hypothesises to support their view of the world, & eventually the ones that are supported by most experts of the field are the ones that succeed. That doesn't imply that these hypothesises or models are objective, not in any strict sense. Better models will appear, & old models will be discarded, & so on.

- The scientific method, specifically the reasoning behind science is not really part of natural sciences, it's part of philosophy.

And again, I'm not sure what you mean by it being a language of human understanding?

- It's the level of conceptualisation we, as human species, possess. We understand more of the concepts those before us conceived of. & those after us will understand more of the concepts we thought up, & so on.

I think the first would be an objective knowledge similar to that of what science provides us in the form of knowledge and understanding, but the other two can easily be a mix of objective and subjective knowledge, which can't really be taken as a truth unless verified by the first method.

- I don't mean it like that. Human Knowledge is not a solid object siting somewhere. It's all ideas in our minds. If humans are gone, then so is human knowledge. Knowledge is fundamentally personal awareness, 1 + 1 = 2 is only true if you're aware of it, otherwise it's meaningless. Science in the mind of a scientist is exactly the scientist's awareness of it. & this awareness is necessarily different for each scientist.

- Without delving too much on how we see things. There is a fundamental distinction between Islamic philosophy & western philosophy. That is, in the western tradition, Objectivity is always sought after. Whereas in the Islamic tradition, we recognise subjectivity in everything human or world related, & we fully embrace it. When we say Natural Science, for instance, we don't mean something fixed somewhere or in some book, we mean whatever natural scientists think natural science is, which is obviously quite subjective.

Sorry Yassine, I really don't agree with that. If you have a degree in physics, you know that's not true, as well.

- That's exactly how I know it's true. Do you know what a hypothesis is? It's basically a plausible explanation of essentially an infinite number of possible explanations. Finding an explanation for a phenomenon no one has any conception of it prior to its happening is nearly impossible. For that would mean picking one explanation out of an infinite number of them. It's evident, by design, that most ideas, no matter how good they are, we could have about Nature will turn out to be false. & indeed, they do. Just read up about the history of the Big Bang Theory. Probably 99% of things advanced by physicists across the century turned out to be garbage. Our understanding expands, & thus so does our better judgement.
- What is unlikely to go away any time soon in Physics however, are the fundamental theories. Fundamental Theories represent truly our level of understanding of the Natural World. Maybe they'd look quite idiotic in few hundred years, but for now they give us a pretty good idea of how Nature behaves in accordance with our current level of understanding.

But, anyone can view the results of the experiment and conduct it themselves to see if they can falsify it, that's how science works.

- Those who do & are fully aware of what they are doing may claim scientific knowledge. For the rest, scientific knowledge does not exist, only faith in it does.

One experiment does not make a theory out of a hypothesis.

- True.

But, if the hypothesis can withstand experiment after experiment and can predict accurately, then there should be no problem with accepting it.

- What I said. Accuracy means compatibility of the observed facts with the predictions of the hypothesis. The better this compatibility is, the more accurate the hypothesis would be.

Science and how it works.

- Still not sure what you're referring to.

Peace.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,641
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2015 10:49:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/29/2015 9:16:05 PM, Yassine wrote:
At 9/29/2015 1:21:58 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:

Greetings,

So sorry, I'm having a difficult time understanding what you mean there, what is the language of the intellect?

- The language of the intellect refers to the sum of the concepts humans are continuously able to perceive & express. It makes better sense in French. I don't know the exact word in English, in French it's spelled: Langage. Le Langage de la pensee, the Discourse of Thought or something.

Okay, so basically knowledge, then?

I don't think anyone categorizes science as special in any way, it's simple an objective, unbiased, impartial method of learning about the world around us, and it manages to work quite well.

- NO. It isn't objective, it isn't unbiased, it isn't impartial... Humans are coming up with these hypothesises to support their view of the world, & eventually the ones that are supported by most experts of the field are the ones that succeed. That doesn't imply that these hypothesises or models are objective, not in any strict sense. Better models will appear, & old models will be discarded, & so on.

Well, it sure would appear we have some polarized views on science, I've not seen anything in the scientific community that would resemble anything like that, quite the contrary. I usually see that with cranks, crackpots, pseudoscience and even religious folks attempting to show their holy books as science books. If there are those who wish to align findings with their views, they are quickly weeded out and discarded.

- The scientific method, specifically the reasoning behind science is not really part of natural sciences, it's part of philosophy.

Perhaps, but the method itself works quite well.

And again, I'm not sure what you mean by it being a language of human understanding?

- It's the level of conceptualisation we, as human species, possess. We understand more of the concepts those before us conceived of. & those after us will understand more of the concepts we thought up, & so on.

Oh okay, I get that now.

I think the first would be an objective knowledge similar to that of what science provides us in the form of knowledge and understanding, but the other two can easily be a mix of objective and subjective knowledge, which can't really be taken as a truth unless verified by the first method.

- I don't mean it like that. Human Knowledge is not a solid object siting somewhere. It's all ideas in our minds. If humans are gone, then so is human knowledge. Knowledge is fundamentally personal awareness, 1 + 1 = 2 is only true if you're aware of it, otherwise it's meaningless. Science in the mind of a scientist is exactly the scientist's awareness of it. & this awareness is necessarily different for each scientist.

Maybe, but whatever theories and facts science uncovers will always remain regardless of whether or not humans are here. For example, relativity, electrodynamics, entropy, etc. will all remain intact.

- Without delving too much on how we see things. There is a fundamental distinction between Islamic philosophy & western philosophy. That is, in the western tradition, Objectivity is always sought after. Whereas in the Islamic tradition, we recognise subjectivity in everything human or world related, & we fully embrace it. When we say Natural Science, for instance, we don't mean something fixed somewhere or in some book, we mean whatever natural scientists think natural science is, which is obviously quite subjective.

That's interesting, but I think by embracing subjectivity, one will find themselves wrong more often than not, especially if those subjective ideas are placed under the scrutiny of an objective method such as the scientific method.

Sorry Yassine, I really don't agree with that. If you have a degree in physics, you know that's not true, as well.

- That's exactly how I know it's true. Do you know what a hypothesis is? It's basically a plausible explanation of essentially an infinite number of possible explanations.

Infinite? Don't you think you're exaggerating? I mean, most hypotheses are based on a great deal of previous work, ideas and understanding, not just plucked out of thin air.

Finding an explanation for a phenomenon no one has any conception of it prior to its happening is nearly impossible.

But, there already is a great body of work from which to find explanations, again, it's not like tossing a dart a dart board.

Relativity, for example, was based on a number of works of other physicists and mathematicians. Einstein didn't just dream it all up or guess at it. He had the work of Maxwell, Lorentz, Michelson-Morley and others.

For that would mean picking one explanation out of an infinite number of them. It's evident, by design, that most ideas, no matter how good they are, we could have about Nature will turn out to be false. & indeed, they do. Just read up about the history of the Big Bang Theory. Probably 99% of things advanced by physicists across the century turned out to be garbage. Our understanding expands, & thus so does our better judgement.

Again, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that. Certainly, the work I and other colleagues have been involved in does not turn out to be garbage 99% of the time.

- What is unlikely to go away any time soon in Physics however, are the fundamental theories. Fundamental Theories represent truly our level of understanding of the Natural World. Maybe they'd look quite idiotic in few hundred years, but for now they give us a pretty good idea of how Nature behaves in accordance with our current level of understanding.

I don't think current theories in Physics that are working will be going away anytime soon, they work extremely well and are quite accurate. The certainly won't look idiotic as others build on them.

But, anyone can view the results of the experiment and conduct it themselves to see if they can falsify it, that's how science works.

- Those who do & are fully aware of what they are doing may claim scientific knowledge. For the rest, scientific knowledge does not exist, only faith in it does.

Again, we'll have to agree to disagree on that.

One experiment does not make a theory out of a hypothesis.

- True.

But, if the hypothesis can withstand experiment after experiment and can predict accurately, then there should be no problem with accepting it.

- What I said. Accuracy means compatibility of the observed facts with the predictions of the hypothesis. The better this compatibility is, the more accurate the hypothesis would be.

Science and how it works.

- Still not sure what you're referring to.

Peace.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
intellectuallyprimitive
Posts: 1,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2015 11:40:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/28/2015 6:28:04 AM, Yassine wrote:
At 9/28/2015 3:17:55 AM, dee-em wrote:


Your point relies on an equivocation fallacy that the faith (confidence) required in all other fields of knowledge is the same as the faith (blind acceptance) required by religious beliefs.

- But you do have faith in those who subscribe to science, even though you don't really know what they supposedly know & you can't verify all their claims. It's just an unattainable position.

Faith, albeit in a different context which Deem is conveying. Not a dishonest pious faith, but faith that is derived from science and scientists tentatively, provided that the work has been submitted for scrutinization and review from peers, submitted to public review, and importantly, was held self-accountable.
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2015 1:55:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/29/2015 10:49:20 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:

Greetings,

Okay, so basically knowledge, then?

- NO. Here is an example, an elementary primary language vs. a high cultured sophisticated language. Idem for the Intellect.

Well, it sure would appear we have some polarized views on science, I've not seen anything in the scientific community that would resemble anything like that, quite the contrary. I usually see that with cranks, crackpots, pseudoscience and even religious folks attempting to show their holy books as science books. If there are those who wish to align findings with their views, they are quickly weeded out and discarded.

- You're not hearing what I am saying. I am not talking about deceit & delusion. I am speaking of real human intellectual endeavours in whatever area of knowledge. Science is biased, because its framework is restrained in the pre-conceived notions scientists have about the world. If you took observations of a phenomenon made today to scientists of the 15th century, you'd get completely different interpretations. Similarly, if you take them to scientists 500 years into the future, you'd get completely different interpretations. There is nothing objective about this. Point being, for our current level of understanding, science makes good sense. & that's it. Supposing otherwise is simply overreaching.

Perhaps, but the method itself works quite well.

- Every field of knowledge has some form of methodology. & virtually all of them rely on Logic, & use some mode of reasoning. The scientific method, or abductive reasoning, is not the only method there is. There are countless others. For instance, mathematics does not rely of abductive reasoning, social sciences rely more on probabilistic & statistical reasoning & so on.

- More so, the scientific method works in its own framework & does not surpass it. It can not overreach to metaphysics or mathematics or ethics... If science relies on accuracy, then truth, certainty, occurrence... mean nothing to it. A mathematical statement can be true or false, a scientific statement can never be true or false, it can only be some degree of accuracy.

Maybe, but whatever theories and facts science uncovers will always remain regardless of whether or not humans are here. For example, relativity, electrodynamics, entropy, etc. will all remain intact.

- They will remain as Riwaya (Narrations), which means nothing in terms of actual knowledge. This also applies for all human knowledge. If there are no scientists around who know what science is all about, there is no science, there are only narrations, even an illiterate person can memorise.

That's interesting, but I think by embracing subjectivity, one will find themselves wrong more often than not, especially if those subjective ideas are placed under the scrutiny of an objective method such as the scientific method.

- On the contrary. By embracing subjectivity, one can measure it & give it its due value. Thus getting rid of delusions concerning objectivity. In Islamic Logic, we consider truth to be the case only to the degree of the person's awareness of it. The law of non-contradiction, for instance, is exactly the individual's awareness of it. It really doesn't mean anything & doesn't even exist outside human awareness. It is not written into Nature, it's a purely man-made concept. You get the point.

- The scientific method is not objective. It enjoys a narrow subjectivity window, but it is not objective, in any strict sense of the word. In a thousand years, everything science represents today would likely be utterly obsolete.

Infinite? Don't you think you're exaggerating?

- Theoretically, yes.

I mean, most hypotheses are based on a great deal of previous work, ideas and understanding, not just plucked out of thin air.

- Of course. That's why scientists are able to figure out so many good explanations. There are literally thousands of years worth of human endeavours that facilitate this process for them. & that is exactly what I refer to as bias. Hypothesises can only be framed within a pre-conceived framework of ideas, which makes them easier to track. It is just likely that countless other possible frameworks exist. It just happens humans did not have a chance to explore them.

But, there already is a great body of work from which to find explanations, again, it's not like tossing a dart a dart board.

- Quite so!

Relativity, for example, was based on a number of works of other physicists and mathematicians. Einstein didn't just dream it all up or guess at it. He had the work of Maxwell, Lorentz, Michelson-Morley and others.

- We are in total agreement here.

Again, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that. Certainly, the work I and other colleagues have been involved in does not turn out to be garbage 99% of the time.

- I am guessing you're referring to a solid theoretical framework, well established & well explored. When exploring new territories, bullsh*t reigns until good explanations come our way, usually after much failed attempts.

I don't think current theories in Physics that are working will be going away anytime soon, they work extremely well and are quite accurate. The certainly won't look idiotic as others build on them.

- Ideas of past centuries on Nature, although genius in their time, look kinda idiotic now. Models don't build on each-other. Each model in Physics has a fundamental equation, & each of these equations is independent of the others. Unless there is a universal equation, which has been the eternal dream for physicists, this consideration is unattainable.

Again, we'll have to agree to disagree on that.

- Not sure on what you disagree!

Peace.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2015 1:56:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/29/2015 11:40:36 PM, intellectuallyprimitive wrote:

Faith, albeit in a different context which Deem is conveying. Not a dishonest pious faith, but faith that is derived from science and scientists tentatively, provided that the work has been submitted for scrutinization and review from peers, submitted to public review, and importantly, was held self-accountable.

- You're trying to justify Faith here. It still is faith nonetheless.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,641
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2015 4:04:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/30/2015 1:55:22 AM, Yassine wrote:
At 9/29/2015 10:49:20 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:

Greetings,

Okay, so basically knowledge, then?

- NO. Here is an example, an elementary primary language vs. a high cultured sophisticated language. Idem for the Intellect.

Well, it sure would appear we have some polarized views on science, I've not seen anything in the scientific community that would resemble anything like that, quite the contrary. I usually see that with cranks, crackpots, pseudoscience and even religious folks attempting to show their holy books as science books. If there are those who wish to align findings with their views, they are quickly weeded out and discarded.

- You're not hearing what I am saying. I am not talking about deceit & delusion. I am speaking of real human intellectual endeavours in whatever area of knowledge. Science is biased, because its framework is restrained in the pre-conceived notions scientists have about the world. If you took observations of a phenomenon made today to scientists of the 15th century, you'd get completely different interpretations. Similarly, if you take them to scientists 500 years into the future, you'd get completely different interpretations. There is nothing objective about this. Point being, for our current level of understanding, science makes good sense. & that's it. Supposing otherwise is simply overreaching.

Greetings!

Yes, I'm hearing what you're saying, but certainly cannot agree to any of it as I'm sure a great deal of scientists would not, as well, the entire scientific community, quite likely. Those who you refer (deceit an delusion) are quickly weeded out of the peer-review process, especially if their experiments are reproduced with contrary results.

Perhaps, but the method itself works quite well.

- Every field of knowledge has some form of methodology. & virtually all of them rely on Logic, & use some mode of reasoning. The scientific method, or abductive reasoning, is not the only method there is. There are countless others. For instance, mathematics does not rely of abductive reasoning, social sciences rely more on probabilistic & statistical reasoning & so on.

And yet, the scientific method is the one used. What other of the countless methods you refer could scientists use and why aren't they using them?

- More so, the scientific method works in its own framework & does not surpass it. It can not overreach to metaphysics or mathematics or ethics... If science relies on accuracy, then truth, certainty, occurrence... mean nothing to it. A mathematical statement can be true or false, a scientific statement can never be true or false, it can only be some degree of accuracy.

Math and the scientific method are two completely different things, if you had a degree in physics, you would understand this quite well. Math is the language of physics, it is not in competition.

And yes, science most certainly can entertain ethics, but since there is no evidence for metaphysics, science has nothing to observe or experiment. The only thing metaphysics offers is the claims from people.

Maybe, but whatever theories and facts science uncovers will always remain regardless of whether or not humans are here. For example, relativity, electrodynamics, entropy, etc. will all remain intact.

- They will remain as Riwaya (Narrations), which means nothing in terms of actual knowledge.

Well yeah, they will remain knowledge because they will still be here and working the way they do long after we're gone. Again, if you know physics, you should understand the postulates of Special Relativity, which deals with that knowledge.

This also applies for all human knowledge. If there are no scientists around who know what science is all about, there is no science, there are only narrations, even an illiterate person can memorise.

That's interesting, but I think by embracing subjectivity, one will find themselves wrong more often than not, especially if those subjective ideas are placed under the scrutiny of an objective method such as the scientific method.

- On the contrary. By embracing subjectivity, one can measure it & give it its due value. Thus getting rid of delusions concerning objectivity. In Islamic Logic, we consider truth to be the case only to the degree of the person's awareness of it. The law of non-contradiction, for instance, is exactly the individual's awareness of it. It really doesn't mean anything & doesn't even exist outside human awareness. It is not written into Nature, it's a purely man-made concept. You get the point.

Sorry, I can't agree that subjectivity somehow has value over and above objectivity, that's basically saying that up is down and black is white. The "law of non-contradiction" is irrelevant in the objective observations of nature.

- The scientific method is not objective. It enjoys a narrow subjectivity window, but it is not objective, in any strict sense of the word. In a thousand years, everything science represents today would likely be utterly obsolete.

Infinite? Don't you think you're exaggerating?

- Theoretically, yes.

I mean, most hypotheses are based on a great deal of previous work, ideas and understanding, not just plucked out of thin air.

- Of course. That's why scientists are able to figure out so many good explanations. There are literally thousands of years worth of human endeavours that facilitate this process for them. & that is exactly what I refer to as bias.

Sorry, that is not bias, those are called facts that have been observed without bias. To say that Relativity, for example, is a biased explanation is contradictory to the it's observed, accurate results.

Hypothesises can only be framed within a pre-conceived framework of ideas, which makes them easier to track. It is just likely that countless other possible frameworks exist. It just happens humans did not have a chance to explore them.

Sorry, but the facts of nature are not pre-conceived ideas, they are the facts of nature that can be shown to anyone.

But, there already is a great body of work from which to find explanations, again, it's not like tossing a dart a dart board.

- Quite so!

Relativity, for example, was based on a number of works of other physicists and mathematicians. Einstein didn't just dream it all up or guess at it. He had the work of Maxwell, Lorentz, Michelson-Morley and others.

- We are in total agreement here.

Again, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that. Certainly, the work I and other colleagues have been involved in does not turn out to be garbage 99% of the time.

- I am guessing you're referring to a solid theoretical framework, well established & well explored. When exploring new territories, bullsh*t reigns until good explanations come our way, usually after much failed attempts.

I don't see a problem with that. The bullsh1t gets weeded out in favor of good explanations.

I don't think current theories in Physics that are working will be going away anytime soon, they work extremely well and are quite accurate. The certainly won't look idiotic as others build on them.

- Ideas of past centuries on Nature, although genius in their time, look kinda idiotic now. Models don't build on each-other. Each model in Physics has a fundamental equation, & each of these equations is independent of the others. Unless there is a universal equation, which has been the eternal dream for physicists, this consideration is unattainable.

You should know that the equations in physics although independent of others MUST all agree with each other or else they are wrong.

Again, we'll have to agree to disagree on that.

- Not sure on what you disagree!

Peace.

Peace
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
janesix
Posts: 3,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2015 5:59:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/27/2015 5:24:00 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
"In religion and politics people"s beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing."
R13; Mark Twain

"When it comes to controlling human beings there is no better instrument than lies. Because, you see, humans live by beliefs. And beliefs can be manipulated. The power to manipulate beliefs is the only thing that counts."
R13; Michael Ende,

"We all ought to understand we're on our own. Believing in Santa Claus doesn't do kids any harm for a few years but it isn't smart for them to continue waiting all their lives for him to come down the chimney with something wonderful. Santa Claus and God are cousins."
R13; Andy Rooney


We've read it here so many times, it's become the norm, that one's beliefs are simply lies and the one propagating the belief is a liar. We read about this when it comes to those who state the Bible is 100% accurate or the Quran is a book of science, that evolution and cosmology are wrong. Heck, we even have a member here who believes dinosaurs are a hoax.

Yes, it is a lie when Dawkins states, "Evolution is a FACT!"

But, are these beliefs lies or are they somehow truths in the mind of that person, despite their beliefs misalignment with the evidence and facts to the contrary? This in stark contrast to the fact that the very same person is forced to deal with evidence and facts of another nature everyday of their lives wherein they wholeheartedly accept that evidence and facts despite rejecting others in favor of their beliefs?
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,641
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2015 6:07:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/30/2015 5:59:46 PM, janesix wrote:
At 9/27/2015 5:24:00 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
"In religion and politics people"s beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing."
R13; Mark Twain

"When it comes to controlling human beings there is no better instrument than lies. Because, you see, humans live by beliefs. And beliefs can be manipulated. The power to manipulate beliefs is the only thing that counts."
R13; Michael Ende,

"We all ought to understand we're on our own. Believing in Santa Claus doesn't do kids any harm for a few years but it isn't smart for them to continue waiting all their lives for him to come down the chimney with something wonderful. Santa Claus and God are cousins."
R13; Andy Rooney


We've read it here so many times, it's become the norm, that one's beliefs are simply lies and the one propagating the belief is a liar. We read about this when it comes to those who state the Bible is 100% accurate or the Quran is a book of science, that evolution and cosmology are wrong. Heck, we even have a member here who believes dinosaurs are a hoax.

Yes, it is a lie when Dawkins states, "Evolution is a FACT!"

The scientific community along with the majority of the population understand that evolution is a fact. If you actually took the time to understand evolution yourself, you would know that, too.

But, are these beliefs lies or are they somehow truths in the mind of that person, despite their beliefs misalignment with the evidence and facts to the contrary? This in stark contrast to the fact that the very same person is forced to deal with evidence and facts of another nature everyday of their lives wherein they wholeheartedly accept that evidence and facts despite rejecting others in favor of their beliefs?
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
janesix
Posts: 3,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2015 6:17:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/30/2015 6:07:23 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 9/30/2015 5:59:46 PM, janesix wrote:
At 9/27/2015 5:24:00 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
"In religion and politics people"s beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing."
R13; Mark Twain

"When it comes to controlling human beings there is no better instrument than lies. Because, you see, humans live by beliefs. And beliefs can be manipulated. The power to manipulate beliefs is the only thing that counts."
R13; Michael Ende,

"We all ought to understand we're on our own. Believing in Santa Claus doesn't do kids any harm for a few years but it isn't smart for them to continue waiting all their lives for him to come down the chimney with something wonderful. Santa Claus and God are cousins."
R13; Andy Rooney


We've read it here so many times, it's become the norm, that one's beliefs are simply lies and the one propagating the belief is a liar. We read about this when it comes to those who state the Bible is 100% accurate or the Quran is a book of science, that evolution and cosmology are wrong. Heck, we even have a member here who believes dinosaurs are a hoax.

Yes, it is a lie when Dawkins states, "Evolution is a FACT!"

The scientific community along with the majority of the population understand that evolution is a fact. If you actually took the time to understand evolution yourself, you would know that, too.

19% of Americans believe in Neo-Darwinian evolution. 31% believe in God-driven evolution. 42% believe in young-Earth creationism. So you are correct, the majority of Americans believe in some form of evolution. I can't find statistics for the rest of the world.

But, are these beliefs lies or are they somehow truths in the mind of that person, despite their beliefs misalignment with the evidence and facts to the contrary? This in stark contrast to the fact that the very same person is forced to deal with evidence and facts of another nature everyday of their lives wherein they wholeheartedly accept that evidence and facts despite rejecting others in favor of their beliefs?
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,641
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2015 6:32:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/30/2015 6:17:10 PM, janesix wrote:
At 9/30/2015 6:07:23 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 9/30/2015 5:59:46 PM, janesix wrote:
At 9/27/2015 5:24:00 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
"In religion and politics people"s beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing."
R13; Mark Twain

"When it comes to controlling human beings there is no better instrument than lies. Because, you see, humans live by beliefs. And beliefs can be manipulated. The power to manipulate beliefs is the only thing that counts."
R13; Michael Ende,

"We all ought to understand we're on our own. Believing in Santa Claus doesn't do kids any harm for a few years but it isn't smart for them to continue waiting all their lives for him to come down the chimney with something wonderful. Santa Claus and God are cousins."
R13; Andy Rooney


We've read it here so many times, it's become the norm, that one's beliefs are simply lies and the one propagating the belief is a liar. We read about this when it comes to those who state the Bible is 100% accurate or the Quran is a book of science, that evolution and cosmology are wrong. Heck, we even have a member here who believes dinosaurs are a hoax.

Yes, it is a lie when Dawkins states, "Evolution is a FACT!"

The scientific community along with the majority of the population understand that evolution is a fact. If you actually took the time to understand evolution yourself, you would know that, too.

19% of Americans believe in Neo-Darwinian evolution. 31% believe in God-driven evolution. 42% believe in young-Earth creationism. So you are correct, the majority of Americans believe in some form of evolution. I can't find statistics for the rest of the world.

But, you're talking about what people believe while I'm referring to what people understand. Huge difference. And no, only about 18% are young earth creationists. What you refer to are simply creationists.


But, are these beliefs lies or are they somehow truths in the mind of that person, despite their beliefs misalignment with the evidence and facts to the contrary? This in stark contrast to the fact that the very same person is forced to deal with evidence and facts of another nature everyday of their lives wherein they wholeheartedly accept that evidence and facts despite rejecting others in favor of their beliefs?
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
janesix
Posts: 3,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2015 6:37:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/30/2015 6:32:36 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 9/30/2015 6:17:10 PM, janesix wrote:
At 9/30/2015 6:07:23 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 9/30/2015 5:59:46 PM, janesix wrote:
At 9/27/2015 5:24:00 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
"In religion and politics people"s beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing."
R13; Mark Twain

"When it comes to controlling human beings there is no better instrument than lies. Because, you see, humans live by beliefs. And beliefs can be manipulated. The power to manipulate beliefs is the only thing that counts."
R13; Michael Ende,

"We all ought to understand we're on our own. Believing in Santa Claus doesn't do kids any harm for a few years but it isn't smart for them to continue waiting all their lives for him to come down the chimney with something wonderful. Santa Claus and God are cousins."
R13; Andy Rooney


We've read it here so many times, it's become the norm, that one's beliefs are simply lies and the one propagating the belief is a liar. We read about this when it comes to those who state the Bible is 100% accurate or the Quran is a book of science, that evolution and cosmology are wrong. Heck, we even have a member here who believes dinosaurs are a hoax.

Yes, it is a lie when Dawkins states, "Evolution is a FACT!"

The scientific community along with the majority of the population understand that evolution is a fact. If you actually took the time to understand evolution yourself, you would know that, too.

19% of Americans believe in Neo-Darwinian evolution. 31% believe in God-driven evolution. 42% believe in young-Earth creationism. So you are correct, the majority of Americans believe in some form of evolution. I can't find statistics for the rest of the world.

But, you're talking about what people believe while I'm referring to what people understand. Huge difference. And no, only about 18% are young earth creationists. What you refer to are simply creationists.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com... You are wrong.


But, are these beliefs lies or are they somehow truths in the mind of that person, despite their beliefs misalignment with the evidence and facts to the contrary? This in stark contrast to the fact that the very same person is forced to deal with evidence and facts of another nature everyday of their lives wherein they wholeheartedly accept that evidence and facts despite rejecting others in favor of their beliefs?
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,641
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2015 6:57:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/30/2015 6:37:52 PM, janesix wrote:
At 9/30/2015 6:32:36 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 9/30/2015 6:17:10 PM, janesix wrote:
At 9/30/2015 6:07:23 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 9/30/2015 5:59:46 PM, janesix wrote:
At 9/27/2015 5:24:00 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
"In religion and politics people"s beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing."
R13; Mark Twain

"When it comes to controlling human beings there is no better instrument than lies. Because, you see, humans live by beliefs. And beliefs can be manipulated. The power to manipulate beliefs is the only thing that counts."
R13; Michael Ende,

"We all ought to understand we're on our own. Believing in Santa Claus doesn't do kids any harm for a few years but it isn't smart for them to continue waiting all their lives for him to come down the chimney with something wonderful. Santa Claus and God are cousins."
R13; Andy Rooney


We've read it here so many times, it's become the norm, that one's beliefs are simply lies and the one propagating the belief is a liar. We read about this when it comes to those who state the Bible is 100% accurate or the Quran is a book of science, that evolution and cosmology are wrong. Heck, we even have a member here who believes dinosaurs are a hoax.

Yes, it is a lie when Dawkins states, "Evolution is a FACT!"

The scientific community along with the majority of the population understand that evolution is a fact. If you actually took the time to understand evolution yourself, you would know that, too.

19% of Americans believe in Neo-Darwinian evolution. 31% believe in God-driven evolution. 42% believe in young-Earth creationism. So you are correct, the majority of Americans believe in some form of evolution. I can't find statistics for the rest of the world.

But, you're talking about what people believe while I'm referring to what people understand. Huge difference. And no, only about 18% are young earth creationists. What you refer to are simply creationists.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com... You are wrong.

Not that I could care less what the article says about believers and their irrational beliefs, but it actually shows you to be wrong.


But, are these beliefs lies or are they somehow truths in the mind of that person, despite their beliefs misalignment with the evidence and facts to the contrary? This in stark contrast to the fact that the very same person is forced to deal with evidence and facts of another nature everyday of their lives wherein they wholeheartedly accept that evidence and facts despite rejecting others in favor of their beliefs?
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
janesix
Posts: 3,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2015 6:58:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/30/2015 6:57:24 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 9/30/2015 6:37:52 PM, janesix wrote:
At 9/30/2015 6:32:36 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 9/30/2015 6:17:10 PM, janesix wrote:
At 9/30/2015 6:07:23 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 9/30/2015 5:59:46 PM, janesix wrote:
At 9/27/2015 5:24:00 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
"In religion and politics people"s beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing."
R13; Mark Twain

"When it comes to controlling human beings there is no better instrument than lies. Because, you see, humans live by beliefs. And beliefs can be manipulated. The power to manipulate beliefs is the only thing that counts."
R13; Michael Ende,

"We all ought to understand we're on our own. Believing in Santa Claus doesn't do kids any harm for a few years but it isn't smart for them to continue waiting all their lives for him to come down the chimney with something wonderful. Santa Claus and God are cousins."
R13; Andy Rooney


We've read it here so many times, it's become the norm, that one's beliefs are simply lies and the one propagating the belief is a liar. We read about this when it comes to those who state the Bible is 100% accurate or the Quran is a book of science, that evolution and cosmology are wrong. Heck, we even have a member here who believes dinosaurs are a hoax.

Yes, it is a lie when Dawkins states, "Evolution is a FACT!"

The scientific community along with the majority of the population understand that evolution is a fact. If you actually took the time to understand evolution yourself, you would know that, too.

19% of Americans believe in Neo-Darwinian evolution. 31% believe in God-driven evolution. 42% believe in young-Earth creationism. So you are correct, the majority of Americans believe in some form of evolution. I can't find statistics for the rest of the world.

But, you're talking about what people believe while I'm referring to what people understand. Huge difference. And no, only about 18% are young earth creationists. What you refer to are simply creationists.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com... You are wrong.

Not that I could care less what the article says about believers and their irrational beliefs, but it actually shows you to be wrong.

How?


But, are these beliefs lies or are they somehow truths in the mind of that person, despite their beliefs misalignment with the evidence and facts to the contrary? This in stark contrast to the fact that the very same person is forced to deal with evidence and facts of another nature everyday of their lives wherein they wholeheartedly accept that evidence and facts despite rejecting others in favor of their beliefs?
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,641
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2015 7:10:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/30/2015 6:58:26 PM, janesix wrote:
At 9/30/2015 6:57:24 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 9/30/2015 6:37:52 PM, janesix wrote:
At 9/30/2015 6:32:36 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 9/30/2015 6:17:10 PM, janesix wrote:
At 9/30/2015 6:07:23 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 9/30/2015 5:59:46 PM, janesix wrote:
At 9/27/2015 5:24:00 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
"In religion and politics people"s beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing."
R13; Mark Twain

"When it comes to controlling human beings there is no better instrument than lies. Because, you see, humans live by beliefs. And beliefs can be manipulated. The power to manipulate beliefs is the only thing that counts."
R13; Michael Ende,

"We all ought to understand we're on our own. Believing in Santa Claus doesn't do kids any harm for a few years but it isn't smart for them to continue waiting all their lives for him to come down the chimney with something wonderful. Santa Claus and God are cousins."
R13; Andy Rooney


We've read it here so many times, it's become the norm, that one's beliefs are simply lies and the one propagating the belief is a liar. We read about this when it comes to those who state the Bible is 100% accurate or the Quran is a book of science, that evolution and cosmology are wrong. Heck, we even have a member here who believes dinosaurs are a hoax.

Yes, it is a lie when Dawkins states, "Evolution is a FACT!"

The scientific community along with the majority of the population understand that evolution is a fact. If you actually took the time to understand evolution yourself, you would know that, too.

19% of Americans believe in Neo-Darwinian evolution. 31% believe in God-driven evolution. 42% believe in young-Earth creationism. So you are correct, the majority of Americans believe in some form of evolution. I can't find statistics for the rest of the world.

But, you're talking about what people believe while I'm referring to what people understand. Huge difference. And no, only about 18% are young earth creationists. What you refer to are simply creationists.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com... You are wrong.

Not that I could care less what the article says about believers and their irrational beliefs, but it actually shows you to be wrong.

How?

Did you not even read the article? Show me where it states your claim that "42% believe in young-Earth creationism", it clearly state Creationism. Seriously, is this even relevant to anything remotely the same as you not understanding evolution?



But, are these beliefs lies or are they somehow truths in the mind of that person, despite their beliefs misalignment with the evidence and facts to the contrary? This in stark contrast to the fact that the very same person is forced to deal with evidence and facts of another nature everyday of their lives wherein they wholeheartedly accept that evidence and facts despite rejecting others in favor of their beliefs?
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
janesix
Posts: 3,485
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2015 7:19:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/30/2015 7:10:53 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 9/30/2015 6:58:26 PM, janesix wrote:
At 9/30/2015 6:57:24 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 9/30/2015 6:37:52 PM, janesix wrote:
At 9/30/2015 6:32:36 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 9/30/2015 6:17:10 PM, janesix wrote:
At 9/30/2015 6:07:23 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 9/30/2015 5:59:46 PM, janesix wrote:
At 9/27/2015 5:24:00 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
"In religion and politics people"s beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing."
R13; Mark Twain

"When it comes to controlling human beings there is no better instrument than lies. Because, you see, humans live by beliefs. And beliefs can be manipulated. The power to manipulate beliefs is the only thing that counts."
R13; Michael Ende,

"We all ought to understand we're on our own. Believing in Santa Claus doesn't do kids any harm for a few years but it isn't smart for them to continue waiting all their lives for him to come down the chimney with something wonderful. Santa Claus and God are cousins."
R13; Andy Rooney


We've read it here so many times, it's become the norm, that one's beliefs are simply lies and the one propagating the belief is a liar. We read about this when it comes to those who state the Bible is 100% accurate or the Quran is a book of science, that evolution and cosmology are wrong. Heck, we even have a member here who believes dinosaurs are a hoax.

Yes, it is a lie when Dawkins states, "Evolution is a FACT!"

The scientific community along with the majority of the population understand that evolution is a fact. If you actually took the time to understand evolution yourself, you would know that, too.

19% of Americans believe in Neo-Darwinian evolution. 31% believe in God-driven evolution. 42% believe in young-Earth creationism. So you are correct, the majority of Americans believe in some form of evolution. I can't find statistics for the rest of the world.

But, you're talking about what people believe while I'm referring to what people understand. Huge difference. And no, only about 18% are young earth creationists. What you refer to are simply creationists.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com... You are wrong.

Not that I could care less what the article says about believers and their irrational beliefs, but it actually shows you to be wrong.

How?

Did you not even read the article? Show me where it states your claim that "42% believe in young-Earth creationism", it clearly state Creationism. Seriously, is this even relevant to anything remotely the same as you not understanding evolution?

What does "less than 10000 years old" mean to you?



But, are these beliefs lies or are they somehow truths in the mind of that person, despite their beliefs misalignment with the evidence and facts to the contrary? This in stark contrast to the fact that the very same person is forced to deal with evidence and facts of another nature everyday of their lives wherein they wholeheartedly accept that evidence and facts despite rejecting others in favor of their beliefs?
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,641
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2015 7:34:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/30/2015 7:19:55 PM, janesix wrote:
At 9/30/2015 7:10:53 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 9/30/2015 6:58:26 PM, janesix wrote:
At 9/30/2015 6:57:24 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 9/30/2015 6:37:52 PM, janesix wrote:
At 9/30/2015 6:32:36 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 9/30/2015 6:17:10 PM, janesix wrote:
At 9/30/2015 6:07:23 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 9/30/2015 5:59:46 PM, janesix wrote:
At 9/27/2015 5:24:00 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
"In religion and politics people"s beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing."
R13; Mark Twain

"When it comes to controlling human beings there is no better instrument than lies. Because, you see, humans live by beliefs. And beliefs can be manipulated. The power to manipulate beliefs is the only thing that counts."
R13; Michael Ende,

"We all ought to understand we're on our own. Believing in Santa Claus doesn't do kids any harm for a few years but it isn't smart for them to continue waiting all their lives for him to come down the chimney with something wonderful. Santa Claus and God are cousins."
R13; Andy Rooney


We've read it here so many times, it's become the norm, that one's beliefs are simply lies and the one propagating the belief is a liar. We read about this when it comes to those who state the Bible is 100% accurate or the Quran is a book of science, that evolution and cosmology are wrong. Heck, we even have a member here who believes dinosaurs are a hoax.

Yes, it is a lie when Dawkins states, "Evolution is a FACT!"

The scientific community along with the majority of the population understand that evolution is a fact. If you actually took the time to understand evolution yourself, you would know that, too.

19% of Americans believe in Neo-Darwinian evolution. 31% believe in God-driven evolution. 42% believe in young-Earth creationism. So you are correct, the majority of Americans believe in some form of evolution. I can't find statistics for the rest of the world.

But, you're talking about what people believe while I'm referring to what people understand. Huge difference. And no, only about 18% are young earth creationists. What you refer to are simply creationists.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com... You are wrong.

Not that I could care less what the article says about believers and their irrational beliefs, but it actually shows you to be wrong.

How?

Did you not even read the article? Show me where it states your claim that "42% believe in young-Earth creationism", it clearly state Creationism. Seriously, is this even relevant to anything remotely the same as you not understanding evolution?

What does "less than 10000 years old" mean to you?

Wow, so not only do not understand evolution, you don't even understand the difference between Creationism and YOUNG EARTH Creationism.



But, are these beliefs lies or are they somehow truths in the mind of that person, despite their beliefs misalignment with the evidence and facts to the contrary? This in stark contrast to the fact that the very same person is forced to deal with evidence and facts of another nature everyday of their lives wherein they wholeheartedly accept that evidence and facts despite rejecting others in favor of their beliefs?
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth