Poland's atheist loonies have had their 5 minutes

Hey, I quoted the same guy you did Popper, after he recanted the quote you posted telling us that it can be tested and is predictable.

I get the feeling we are having a philosophical debate, rather than a debate about ideas or a subject.
That philosophically we can say we are not real or don't even exist, until that Descartes came up with his, "I think therefore I am". Had he read the thoughtless posts by members of this website he might have drawn a different conclusion :)


Sounds to me like there is a twinge of regret in that ;)
I only joined because it sounded like, and to an extent still sounds like, you are putting the theory of Evolution on par with God.


You say it ain't so but I don't see anything to back that up.

I think one of the most important things in life is doubt. I think it is a very necessary faculty of the human mind because we have and continue to get so many things wrong, sometimes leading to death or worse.

If someone could disprove Evolution (I know you think they can't but I have posted several ways this could be done, care to discuss?), I would be fascinated and, with doubt, look in to it.


Agreed.

milky wrote:


and this is a perfect example of something not unique to religion. even a "soap opera" can achieve the same results. "ritual" is not limited to religious experience as you have already pointed out. i think my bluntness is quite appropriate.

barney wrote:


the basis of this statement is incorrect. evolution is not a belief, it's a fact. you wouldn't say that the law of gravity is a belief, would you? this tendancy to call various things a "belief" such as evolution stems only from people who refuse to accept it usually due to their religious beliefs.

barney wrote:



again, a senseless statement. sorry man. don't mean to disrespect but honestly, what does that mean? science and logic? anything in this world that we understand to be fact originated from science or some form of it. whether some of the existing theories of science haven't been completely proven or that some things are completely unknown, we still will need to use science to move forward with them. nothing else. someone's "faith" in science comes from the fact that using trial and error and the scientific method will in fact get you real answers or at the very least, closer to it. even mentioning religion here is simply inappropriate.

barney wrote:


that's one of the things science tries to do and boy has it been successful at it for a very long time and will continue to do so.

seanMB wrote:


agreed.

as for me, i see very little room for philosophy with this subject matter. evolution is real. it's a fact. whether we know something for certain in this world or we have only begun digging at it to find out how something works or why something is what it is has nothing to do with religion at all.

I want to be clear when i say this: there are thousands of religions in the world but only 1 science. when i use the word "science" i am talking about all the people who are trying to discover new things or prove or disprove things in this world through the scientific method and trial and error with religion completely removed from the equation.

science can be summarized simply by calling it "people trying to figure stuff out without the use of religion/superstition."

In a thread about atheists it will become philosophical.


No, instead of debunking science I have been pointing out that there are logical flaws in science and a good scientific mind will try and explain these flaws. Thus using science as a universal truth to suggest that there is no God is logically flawed.

That was my point.

I know that you can think yourself into a black hole like those irritating little boys with pockets full of wire and electrical fuses proving that 1+1=3.

There has to be a basis for doing something, anything, people just dont look at things with a blank mind.

What is "The scientific method" essentially it is whatever you want it to be


You can use anything and say anything.

You suggest that all good science is based on rationality and logic.

How do you make a choice between two competing ideas that have access to the same data? It is done by either probability or product both of which entail gathering data, the type and nature of the data gathered depends upon theory, a kind of leap of faith.


Philosophers try to tidy up this mess and give a framework to science so that we can tell the difference between science and pseudo science. Blindly accepting one set of ideas over another is no different to having belief. Science is not fact nor is it common sense it's a process and the methodology is defined by philosophy.


If evolution is a fact why does it keep changing? Evolution contains a process, there are too many variables for a process to be a fact, saying it is a fact is also saying that it's a truth.

As there are evolutionary truths I believe that the process is probably true.

Scientists generally don't give a dam for philosophy but to make any claim for the superiority of science over superstition you need philosophy. Any open mind can see that that must be the case.


The predictive ability of Evolution is powerful but nowhere near as powerful as the so called hard sciences. The predictions tend to be very short term, (cosmologists however predict over billions of years). Often the predictions of evolutionists are wrong, where oil will be found for example, or the exceptions to the rules on inheritance, though they have a good hit rate. That doesn't nullify the science it just leads to probability.

The ability to falsify evolutionary theory is also restricted, when it has been challenged the theory changes to fit the new evidence (ad hoc). Thus falsification of evolution relies on degrees of truth and learned experience. We dont know what will happen if a rabbit is found in the precambrian, will there be an ad hoc change or a fundamental re-evaluation to deal with the new discovery?


I accept evolution, am not religious and probably dont believe in God:)

Edit:
Lots of theories have been falsified in the past but are still in use because they are so powerful.

I watched again the investigating committee on Church crimes against young people in our Belgian parliament.
Last week again revelations of young boys raped by nuns. Today the top Jezuit guy in Belgium apologizing for the horrors committed by members of his order in the past and asking for forgiveness. Last week the archbishop got grilled by a hostile committee.

This will never ever happen in Poland. Any politician doing this...probably would get shot by the crossists.
After all all Polish priests (especially the RM kind) are pure as snow.

Perhaps there's a simple explanation, Poles are not as perverted as Belgian people and know their boundaries.

Especially with the RM church, there is always dirt under the carpet. Polish are pobably better in hiding it ;-) Matter of time...

What Fuzzy calls fact, I call theory, you call belief.

I think I understand what you are trying to say and I still have a problem with it.
The sun will probably rise tomorrow, we have no way of knowing that for 100% but for the past 4.5 billion years it has (both measurable and observable), so what's a day? well 4.5 billion years is comparatively nothing in the grand scheme of things, so we have a theory that the sun will rise tomorrow, that theory does not mean the sun will always rise (it probably won't) but for practical purposes we say it will.

Now google "how old is our earth?" and the first hit you get is all about creation, no really that is the name of the website. It's roughly based on the bible, no need for any annoying details, or thought, just one book.


Or is abandoned in search of a more realistic one, that is the very nature of a theory. That is why it is not a belief, if you can produce evidence to the contrary, it would either change the theory or disprove it that alone clearly sets it aside from God.

seanmb wrote:


which is why if this conversation remains so philosophical, we will get nowhere. it's full of "well anything can mean anything" type responses which is like saying nothing at all. I think I'm typing right now....but isn't it possible I'm in a 'The Matrix' scenerio and I'm really laying in a cacoon and I'm imagining all of this? you see what I mean.

So Barney.....please provide me with at least 3 things in this world you consider to be fact.

You have a clear lack of imagination if PF is the best you can dream up :D


I got one only, I will die.

Edit* I have no proof it will happen to me, I might be the exception? :)

In an ideal world that would be the case.
That is why punctuated equilibrium is an ad hoc change.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hoc

The fossil record cannot be explained by gradualism even if gradualism is working at different speeds. So we need punctuated equilibrium to explain the fossil record, some threads show a gradual process and some show a rapid change. For me that is a logical flaw in the elegance of the theory but perhaps all theories are imperfect.


That is really irritating I have started using Google Scholar when I want to check something scientific.
scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=how+old+is+our+earth&hl=en&btnG=Search&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=on


God the father, God the son and God the holy spirit;)

But seriously three things:

Captain Beefheart is dead (Measurable)
We have a heliocentric solar system....looks the same as a geocentric one from here though;) (Belief dependant)
The mighty Spurs are in the knockout stage of the Champions League. (Consensus view)

Philosophical thought is necessary after all we are not talking about The Bay City Rollers.

If your rhetoric to my argument is that it is too perfect, then I should really quit while I'm ahead :)


Thanks for the tip.

barney wrote:


Elvis could still be alive following your logic.

what you are saying is that nothing at all can be assumed to be 100% factual which means that science, as a whole, is nothing more than people chasing truths that will never actually be truths in their purist form. you can show us 1,000 times over that something is true....but it still won't be true.

what are we even talking about.

Are you telling us he is dead...?

Jeez , when did this happen...?

Thank god we still have Michael Jackson....i must watch the news more often...

Hwat?! That's insane! I saw him yesterday!
Suggesting that Elvis is dead is just as ridiculous as saying that man could ever land on the Moon.

[quote=Olaf]just as ridiculous as saying that man could ever land on the Moon.[/quote

I believe , that one day it will be possible , and if man ever does get to the moon , will they find God there...???

He must live somewhere...?

He prefers to orbit the heavens as dark matter...

There is some dark matter on my kitchen floor....but i don,t think its God , more likely something to do with my cats , probably the remains of a mouse...?

I say your cat is the source (and secret schemer) of all your failures. It is the tool in the hands [or paws or fins - who's really to say how it looks? :) ] of the Dark Lord. The dark matter is there as a sign! Does it secrete a hellish odour comparable to cat's shite? If so then there is a powerful deamon in your house and you should leave it instantly praying that the deamon won't follow you. Or you can just clean the cat shite and teach the mischief furry fekker to do it outside :D


Wasn't she was just an elderly atheist lady who liked to help people?

Nooo it turned out to be half a mouse.. it had been beheaded... . maybe my cats a Muslim...?

Perhaps there is a much better explanation. The polish church is almighty and any policeman, any judge, any politician bringing pedophile cases to light can kiss goodbye to his/her career.

Yup there is; a society that is heavily into fetishes one of which is dressing up like a clergy because it turns them on and printing that sort of prn since the 60's should not be surprised when finally their next generation of degenerates thinks it is normal. Perverts that's all they are.

The unmitigated cognitive dissonance of the deluded mind; the religious have no brakes to the inertia of their delusions.

Amen to that!

From the London Review of Booksregarding the "God Delusion". This is precisely what militant internet atheists do, as we have witnessed in this thread. Not exactly what i would call good scholarship.

Atheists only appear to be right if your intellectual level is that of a child. There isn't a single argument made by Dawkins or Hitchens that any of us didn't thought about when we were 13. It takes a greater deal of intellectual maturity to comprehend metaphysical concepts. Reason is easy, which is why lefists like it so much. True metaphysical thinking is hard as hell, which is why concepts such as that of genius, truth, and even god, simply transcend the ability of the modern individual to understand. You can see the childishness of the atheist by his tendency to choose easy and predictable targets for his invectives. You will never see an atheist tackle somebody like Dostoevsky. Indeed, it would never occur to an atheist because his intellectual level isn't developed enough to even contemplate the argument presented by a true metaphysician.

So you believe in gods?

God. Singular. Or to be exact, that there IS Truth. You don't even seem able to follow the argument.

Singular? But there are so many to choose from. Which do you prefer?

Are you making fun of his religion?

I will try to give you a serious answer Jon, one last time.
The same truth CAN in fact be told from many different point of views and can in fact be expressed in many different ways, which is only natural when we are speaking of an "absolute" truth which is then expressed by relative means (which cannot possibly ever hope to cover the entirety of the truth in question). I've already stated in different threads, I believe all the various religions are just different expressions of the same truth, so the fact each of Gospels seems to different from the other doesn't trouble me in the least. Indeed, I would be surprised of the contrary.

waste of time, he will automatically contradict you