Religious vs. Atheist "converters"

[This_person]

CASINOS

 

[This_person]

The devout exploit the meaning of theory as though it were only blind speculation like their own position is.

A scientific theory isn’t a guess or conjecture. Anybody can sit around and go i have a theory why the x-men series is the best cartoon ever, but that's not what a scientific theory is - it doesn't mean the same thing at all. Hopefully you see that parrallel.

In most instances, a theory is a field of study. For example Cell Theory, would you say that cells aren’t an established scientific fact because they’re called “theory” too? So what does theory mean. To some people happen to think theory means guess. A scientific theory is not a random guess thrown out into space, can your belief say this?

A scientific theory is a set of observed related events based upon accumulated evidence: laws, hypothesis, proven facts of other scientific theories and then agreed upon and reviewed by multiple scientists - until there is a scientific consensus for such to become a theory.

Something being a theory is not mutually exclusive for it to be a fact. Evolution is both a theory and a fact, for example the theory of gravity is a theory and is also a scientific law, and a fact. Another important element of the theory is that it is falsifiable - that it can be proven wrong. That is why pseudo religious dogma theories: creation and Intelligent Design are not actual scientific theoris and can never be because they are not falsifiable. You can not dispove god did it, the same way you can disprove the theory of evolution quite easily by having fossils out of order.

A large part of the reason why the devout ague against evolution is because they don't address evolution, but rather argue against a set of misunderstandings that people are right to consider ludicrous. The devout wrongly believe that their understanding of evolution is what the theory of evolution really says.

Being a theory implies self-consistency, agreement with observations, and usefulness. (Creationism fails to be a theory mainly because of the last point; it makes few or no specific claims about what we would expect to find, so it can't be used for anything. When it does make falsifiable predictions, they prove to be false.)

Lack of proof isn't a weakness, claiming infallibility for one's conclusions is a sign of a non-scientific approach. Nothing in the real world has ever been rigorously proved, or ever will be. Proof, in the mathematical sense, is possible only if you have the luxury of defining the universe you're operating in. In the real world, we must deal with levels of certainty based on observed evidence. The more and better evidence we have for something, the more certainty we assign to it; when there is enough evidence, we label the something a fact, even though it still isn't 100% certain.

Scientific models can never be stagnant--they are constantly changing and expanding as our knowledge of the universe increases. Thus, scientific models can never be viewed as "the truth". At best, they are an approximation to truth, and these approximations become progressively closer to "the truth" as more testing of new evidence and data is done. However, no scientific model can ever reach "the truth", since no one will ever possess knowledge of ALL facts and data. As long as we do not have perfect and complete knowledge, our scientific models must be considered tentative, and valid only within the current limits of what we know.

Here are some other theories: Germ Theory, The Theory of Electromagnitism, The Theory of Atomics, The Theory of Gravity, The Theory Heliocentrism (the earth going around the sun)

But don't worry, the earth going around the sun it's only a theory, maybe the bibles right after all

So, where is the "control" on evolution?

Where is the link that shows bats and rats and elephants and humans have the same ancestor?

Where is the testable, repeatable ability for abiogenesis with sponge-to-human evolution following?

You wrote a lot about theories and definitions, but you still have nothing but a few pieces of data linked together with (reasonable, but not proven) conjecture.

 

[This_person]

Uh yeah they did, maybe you should project your ignorance of other beliefs. Just because they didnt believe in YOUR heaven does not mean they didnt have their own variant.

Clearly, all of their variants lead to different results.

 

[Zguy28]

Nucklesack's explanation of "theory"

Thank you for explaining that. Most people do not understand what is meant by scientific theory and its involvement of predictions, testing, conclusions drawn from evidence, etc.

A scientific theory is not a random guess thrown out into space, can your belief say this?

Certainly. Enter the historian and textual critic's realm of academia and take a look.

 

[This_person]

Lookup Russels Teapot and explain the difference. Without using age of the belief, how is Scientology any different?

did you come up with a testable control for abiogenesis and human evolution yet? I've asked several times.

 

[This_person]

In most instances, a theory is a field of study.

A scientific theory is a set of observed related events based upon accumulated evidence: laws, hypothesis hypothesis are not evidence, proven facts of other scientific theories and then agreed upon and reviewed by multiple scientists - until there is a scientific consensus for such to become a theory.

Something being a theory is not mutually exclusive for it to be a fact. Nor does it suggest something IS fact Evolution is both a theory and a fact, for example the theory of gravity is a theory and is also a scientific law, and a fact. Another important element of the theory is that it is falsifiable - that it can be proven wrong. That is why pseudo religious dogma theories: creation and Intelligent Design are not actual scientific theoris and can never be because they are not falsifiable. You can not dispove god did it of course you can - demonstrate that it can be done without God, and then you have proven it did not take some designer to do it. Start with a void, and develop a universe from it - that's all you'd have to do, the same way you can disprove the theory of evolution quite easily by having fossils out of order. Llike, having both teh off-shoot species and the parent species existing together? We'd never have that if the parent species evolved, right?

A large part of the reason why the devout ague against evolution is because they don't address evolution, but rather argue against a set of misunderstandings that people are right to consider ludicrous. The devout wrongly believe that their understanding of evolution is what the theory of evolution really says. Or, they do understand and word it by emphasising the weaknesses, thus making it look ludicrous.

Being a theory implies self-consistency, agreement with observations, and usefulness. (Creationism fails to be a theory mainly because of the last point; it makes few or no specific claims about what we would expect to find, so it can't be used for anything. When it does make falsifiable predictions, they prove to be false.) What's useful about abiogenesis? What's useful about evolution? Without the ability to establish the initial conditions, they're not provable, so there's no usefullness to them. Also, can you demonstrate what predictions have been falsified? I'm not arguing, I'm curious.

Lack of proof isn't a weakness, Not to conjecture, no claiming infallibility for one's conclusions is a sign of a non-scientific approach. You're mistaking the claim of infalibility of God with infalibility of ID. These are not the same, as I know of no claim of infalibility of ID Nothing in the real world has ever been rigorously proved, or ever will be. Proof, in the mathematical sense, is possible only if you have the luxury of defining the universe you're operating in. In the real world, we must deal with levels of certainty based on observed evidence. The more and better evidence we have for something, the more certainty we assign to it; when there is enough evidence, we label the something a fact, even though it still isn't 100% certain. Labeling it as such does not in any way mean it is, in fact, a fact.

Scientific models can never be stagnant--they are constantly changing and expanding as our knowledge of the universe increases. Thus, scientific models can never be viewed as "the truth". At best, they are an approximation to truth, and these approximations become progressively closer to "the truth" as more testing of new evidence and data is done. However, no scientific model can ever reach "the truth", since no one will ever possess knowledge of ALL facts and data. As long as we do not have perfect and complete knowledge, our scientific models must be considered tentative, and valid only within the current limits of what we know. With you 100% here!

Here are some other theories: Germ Theory, The Theory of Electromagnitism, The Theory of Atomics, The Theory of Gravity, The Theory Heliocentrism (the earth going around the sun)

But don't worry, the earth going around the sun it's only a theory, maybe the bibles right after all

Can you show me where the Bible states the earth does not revolve around the sun? Or, are you referring to an interpretation of the observation that the sun stopped in the sky? If that's your reference, you DO realize it's an interpretation, right?

 

[Zguy28]

Lookup Russels Teapot and explain the difference. Without using age of the belief, how is Scientology any different?

Yes, I've heard of the Teapot analogy before. Dawkins has used it as well.

That's not what I was talking about though. I'm not asking you to disprove the historicity of Jesus resurrection. I was inviting you to look at the historical evidence for it. If you want to discuss and argue against it, that's fine, go for it. I'll be happy to discuss it. If not, I'm just happy you looked at it sincerely.

Is there significant historical evidence to support L Ron Hubbard's sci-fi religion?

 

[Zguy28]

did you come up with a testable control for abiogenesis and human evolution yet? I've asked several times.

I actually know a Christian who is a evolutionary biologist.

Evolution has been observed in bacteria becoming resistent to antibiotics.

 

[mAlice]

Yes, I've heard of the Teapot analogy before. Dawkins has used it as well.

That's not what I was talking about though. I'm not asking you to disprove the historicity of Jesus resurrection. I was inviting you to look at the historical evidence for it.

Is there significant historical evidence to support L Ron Hubbard's sci-fi religion?

Is there significant historical evidence that Jesus was resurrected?

 

[Zguy28]

Is there significant historical evidence that Jesus was resurrected?

There is a lot of historical evidence.

I posted this earlier in the thread but I think it got lost.

Is there a Case for the Resurrection of Jesus?

 

[mAlice]

There is a lot of historical evidence.

I posted this earlier in the thread but I think it got lost.

Is there a Case for the Resurrection of Jesus?

I asked for evidence of a resurrection. Not speculation and here say about an empty tomb.

 

[This_person]

I'm not a scientest, have you parted the red sea, talked to a burning bush ?

no, but I don't claim my faith is scientific fact That makes a pretty huge difference.

If you're going to claim fact based on testable data, shouldn't you have testable data?

Evolution of species clearly occurs within that species. I'm much taller than my great-great-great-great-great grandfather likely was. No doubt medicinal and food quality have a great deal to do with that, but that's still evolutionary process.

But, to claim as fact that my dog, my goldfish, my horse, and I all have a common ancestor (which is a valid interpretation of the evolutionary concept) with no repeatable, testable data is pretty dishonest, don't you agree?

 

[mAlice]

Dont you understand, the Tomb that is purported to be where "The" Jeus, who was supposedly the son of God, is now empty.

I believe there was an anarchist name Jesus. I believe he was tortured and crucified. I have no doubt that he was laid in a tomb, dead or alive, and disappeared from the tomb. However, I find no compelling evidence that he was resurrected.

 

[This_person]

I believe there was an anarchist name Jesus. I believe he was tortured and crucified. I have no doubt that he was laid in a tomb, dead or alive, and disappeared from the tomb. However, I find no compelling evidence that he was resurrected.

That's where faith comes in.

People believe it, but don't claim they can prove it or that it's been proven.

That's the difference between honest recognition of faith, and dishonestly spreading conjecture as fact.

 

[Zguy28]

well his tomb is now empty, of course he was ressurected

Actually its things like multiple independent attestations, self deprecating accounts (writing about their own embarassing doubts and disbeliefs), the fact that women (who were second class citizens and who opinions counted as nothing) first discovered the empty tomb and to meet Jesus afterward. Not to mention that the disciples were in a position to know if it was all a hoax or lie (unlike current suicide bombers, martyrs, and such) and yet still went to torturous deaths without recanting their testimony that they had seen and talked to the risen Jesus.

 

[Zguy28]

I asked for evidence of a resurrection. Not speculation and here say about an empty tomb.

Which historical facts from Craig's presentation do you consider speculation?

 

[mAlice]

Which historical facts from Craig's presentation do you consider speculation?

Well, there is insufficient evidence to support that any of it ever happened. That makes it speculation. The facts that are presented as such, are speculation. The "witnesses" are spreading rumors, or here say.

There is no more reason to believe any of that, than there is to believe that dionysus was crucified. However, we each choose to believe certain things that are presented to us as "history". A crucifixion is something that could be tangible, whereas a resurrection is not.

 

[Zguy28]

Well, there is insufficient evidence to support that any of it ever happened. That makes it speculation. The facts that are presented as such, are speculation. The "witnesses" are spreading rumors, or here say.

Insufficient according to whom?

Its sufficient for a majority of historical scholars to conclude that the disciples had some sort of experience that led them to believe they had seen the risen Jesus.

In understand that you are not convinced. That's fine. But I must note that your objections are not supported by most scholarly research.

There is no more reason to believe any of that, than there is to believe that dionysus was crucified.
However, we each choose to believe certain things that are presented to us as "history". A crucifixion is something that could be tangible, whereas a resurrection is not.

How so? If people witnessed the risen Jesus, is that not tangible?


If you don't mind, why don't you specifically explain why you reject each of the arguments instead of just casting everything off as "here say"[sic].

 

[mAlice]

Insufficient according to whom?

Its sufficient for a majority of historical scholars to conclude that the disciples had some sort of experience that led them to believe they had seen the risen Jesus.

In understand that you are not convinced. That's fine. But I must note that your objections are not supported by most scholarly research.

How so? If people witnessed the risen Jesus, is that not tangible?

Interesting, the speaker never calls out who those scholars are. There is no reason to believe in a resurrection when it could be explained as simply perpetuating the anarchy that had been started by a sect of people.

Tangible evidence is something that can be seen by anyone, with the naked eye. Something that one can reach out and touch, and feel at the tip of your fingers.

The evidence that is being presented is no more tangible than me saying my keys have been resurrected because I can't find them.

 

[Zguy28]

Interesting, the speaker never calls out who those scholars are. There is no reason to believe in a resurrection when it could be explained as simply perpetuating the anarchy that had been started by a sect of people.

This is a long read, Its from scholar Gary Habermas's website. It goes into many scholars and what they believe on the subject.

Dialog: Experiences of the Risen Jesus

Tangible evidence is something that can be seen by anyone, with the naked eye. Something that one can reach out and touch, and feel at the tip of your fingers.

Exactly. That is what historians hold about the disciples. They believed that they experienced the risen Jesus. They ate and drank with, and touched him.

The evidence that is being presented is no more tangible than me saying my keys have been resurrected because I can't find them.

No, the evidence presented is analogous to someone taking your keys, you expecting to never get them back, then they somehow show up on your dresser. Who knows the mechanics of how they got back there, but they are there and you have seen them and you believe that they returned to you because they did. Heck you can even go out and start your car with them.

If they didn't and you were just making it up, you certainly would expose the untruth when put under stress to recant.

Now maybe, maybe there is a chance that somebody made an exact copy of your keys, right down to the keychain and the wear marks from use in order to fool you, but that's certainly not the simplest and most logical conclusion. The logical conclusion is that the keys have returned, especially since you have held them and used them.