Split Thread Atheism and lack of belief in the afterlife

[Leumas]

I wonder if the hawkers for Imbecilic Design think that Quetzalcoatl or Unkulunkulu is the designer??

 

[Thermal]

Great experiences are not religious experiences. That some individuals insist on suggesting a fairy tale character is responsible for those experiences is inherently dishonest.

Maybe. I find them sincere. It sure seems to be their truth, anyway.

As far as whether their great experiences are religious experiences, that's exactly the point I'm interested in.

 

[Leumas]

Maybe. I find them sincere. It sure seems to be their truth, anyway.

As far as whether their great experiences are religious experiences, that's exactly the point I'm interested in.

Who are "they" and do "they" know you are observing them like lab mice?

And how long has this observational field experiment been going on? Have you reached a conclusion yet? When will you?

And do you hold any expectations at all that you will locate this "GOD DELUSION"??

... It sure seems to be their truth, anyway...

There is no such thing... it is either true or false regardless of whose it is.... truth is not a Burger King advertising slogan.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Who said anything about "proving" ID? Has any ID proponent presented a paper that they've claimed "proved" ID? No. They are doing the right thing by publishing in peer reviewed journals, building up a body of work to question the scientific consensus.

Round and round, then when in a corner see if a pedantic/semantic sidetrack can get you out.

There is a list of articles supporting ID in peer reviewed journals. I've given the list several times. They have been shown to be full of mistakes. That's science in action. SCIENCE WORKS!

I don't want a list.

Pull out the one you think is actually a paper that supported or tested ID that was published in a peer reviewed journal.

Here is a review of Meyer's peer reviewed paper:
https://pandasthumb.org/archives/2004/08/meyers-hopeless-1.html

The reviewer is correct. ID has been evaluated and rejected by the scientific community. ...

Do you not understand the concept ID is religion, not in science territory.

How would you go about testing for the existence of a designer? How have any of these researchers gone about testing for a designer? And what I asked before, how would proving evolution theory had been seriously challenged suggest there is therefore a designer?

I think I am defending science. I think you are defending orthodoxy, which is the enemy of science, by rejecting that ID can be formulated in any way that borders scientific legitimacy. You need to accept that ID has published in peer reviewed journals and has been found wanting. Otherwise you are rejecting science.

Other than in comments rejecting it, you have yet to post one single paper where you think research supporting ID has been published in a peer reviewed journal. Even if the paper got poor reviews, show us where they were testing ID. Is that request really that difficult?
By the way your little comments, especially in all caps:

science works
science for the win
I am defending science​

Are not making you look all sciencey. Neither is imagining we are all old guard science community members and you are in the new guard come to show us how we no longer have open minds.

 

[Thermal]

You mean drug addiction?

No. You're asking a lot of odd questions tonight.

I would not recommend that at all...

When I was 15 in school centuries ago, some "friends" offered me an LSD tablet in the woods surrounding our school.

I had the intelligence to not refuse lest they think me a prig... but also to pretend to take the damned thing but not actually take it and then sit there to see what it did to them.

The same thing with alcohol offerings in the same woods at the same age...

An interesting thought went through my head at that age... why is it that these people were so nice and generous with giving me FREELY what they must have spent good money on... why were they so wonderfully generous?

Um...because they like to have fun, and wanted to share with you some fun, perhaps because they thought you were fun and would like to have fun with them? That's pretty much why others offered recreational substances to me, which I must admit I lacked your restraint in accepting. Turned out pretty fun for all involved most of the time, if memory serves. Memory might be a little hazy for some of the times, of course.

You got some kind of point you'd like to get around to?

Drugs induced euphoria and religions induced euphoria have the same physical bases and are well understood and researched and reproduce phenomena in clinical studies. I suggest you read some of those research papers.

I suggest you do the same, as drug induced euphoria are notoriously short lived, and religious euphoria is often a lifetime gig. Also, drug induced euphoria results from chemical interactions triggered by the substances, and wears off quickly, usually leaving users crashed, while religious ecstacy is spontaneous and has no withdrawal. They actually have remarkably little in common, come to that.

Care to stagger around to making your point a little clearer, perhaps with a complete thought?

 

[acbytesla]

Maybe. I find them sincere. It sure seems to be their truth, anyway.

No such thing as their truth or my truth. Truth is NOT personal. Donkeys and Snakes don't talk. Period.

As far as whether their great experiences are religious experiences, that's exactly the point I'm interested in.

And it doesn't interest me at all.

 

[Thermal]

This is so pointless I can't tell which of you both that you are referring to and what it is supposed to mean.

Ya I get that a lot. As an exercise, try thinking it through. Why would "that which is asserted without evidence" apply to both of us (since I was responding to only one specific poster, you can be pretty confident in who the both of us are).

 

[Thermal]

No such thing as their truth or my truth. Truth is NOT personal. Donkeys and Snakes don't talk. Period.

Donkeys and snakes do not factually use human speech, tru dat. But ain't no way I'm going to devolve into defending that truth can be subjective, and has been used that way for centuries.

And it doesn't interest me at all.

Chocolate and vanilla, my brother.

 

[Thermal]

Who are "they" and "they" know you are observing them like lab mice?

And how long has this observational field experiment been going on? Have you reached a conclusion yet? When will you?

And do you hold any expectations at all that you will locate this "GOD DELUSION"??





There is no such thing... it is either true or false regardless of whose it is.... truth is not a Burger King advertising slogan.

...wut?

 

[psionl0]

It was published. Not that it withstands critique.

Why post a complete non-answer?

 

[acbytesla]

Why post a complete non-answer?

I linked to the full article.

 

[GDon]

No, just like Meyer and the Discovery Institute you're not. You only touched the surface of that review of Meyer’s article.

Yes, as I've said, ID is a failed hypothesis. The review shows all the problems in Meyer's peer reviewed article.

Seriously: after all I've said, after the numerous times that I've said that ID is wrong, do you think that I support ID? I thought I was arguing that ID ideas have been published in peer reviewed journals (which is true), that they have been shown to be wrong, and this is science at work. What do you think I'm arguing?

(ETA) If you want to argue against my description of ID as being a "failed hypothesis", what do you think of Dawkins' description of the "God Hypothesis" involving a designer:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Delusion#"God_hypothesis"

He writes that one of the greatest challenges to the human intellect has been to explain "how the complex, improbable design in the universe arises", and suggests that there are two competing explanations:

1. A hypothesis involving a designer, that is, a complex being to account for the complexity that we see.2. A hypothesis, with supporting theories, that explains how, from simple origins and principles, something more complex can emerge.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Ya I get that a lot. As an exercise, try thinking it through. Why would "that which is asserted without evidence" apply to both of us (since I was responding to only one specific poster, you can be pretty confident in who the both of us are).

Not into games, sorry.

 

[GDon]

Pull out the one you think is actually a paper that supported or tested ID that was published in a peer reviewed journal.

I surrender! You are right, there is no article supporting ID in a peer reviewed journal, so obviously I can't have mentioned any. You have convinced me. Well done!

 

[acbytesla]

Round and round, then when in a corner see if a pedantic/semantic sidetrack can get you out.

I don't want a list.

Pull out the one you think is actually a paper that supported or tested ID that was published in a peer reviewed journal.

Do you not understand the concept ID is religion, not in science territory.

How would you go about testing for the existence of a designer? How have any of these researchers gone about testing for a designer? And what I asked before, how would proving evolution theory had been seriously challenged suggest there is therefore a designer?

Other than in comments rejecting it, you have yet to post one single paper where you think research supporting ID has been published in a peer reviewed journal. Even if the paper got poor reviews, show us where they were testing ID. Is that request really that difficult?

Exactly. The articles he linked to did not test for ID. Not one of them.

 

[acbytesla]

Yes, as I've said, ID is a failed hypothesis. The review shows all the problems in Meyer's peer reviewed article.

Seriously: after all I've said, after the numerous times that I've said that ID is wrong, do you think that I support ID? I thought I was arguing that ID ideas have been published in peer reviewed journals (which is true), that they have been shown to be wrong, and this is science at work. What do you think I'm arguing?

And yet you suggest ID proponents are practicing science.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I surrender! You are right, there is no article supporting ID in a peer reviewed journal, so obviously I can't have mentioned any. You have convinced me. Well done!

You can either pull one article out or stop playing your game as well. Why should I sort through a data dump when I made a simple request, show me one.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Exactly. The articles he linked to did not test for ID. Not one of them.

Thank you. That's as I expected.

 

[Thermal]

Not into games, sorry.

That poster and I were both putting up opinions without evidence. So both of us would be subject to the adage "that which is claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence". I was aware of this. My adversary, bless his innocent heart, was not. Clear enough?

 

[8enotto]

If there was a plan of sorts to normalize the ID thing they missed it. One gets published, another peer or peers can follow to proclaim how correct and inspired it is. Of course carefully avoiding points that would betray its not a working theory.

Those reading later could be lulled into not fully thinking it through, relying on the peer review as proof.