Split Thread Atheism and lack of belief in the afterlife

[psionl0]

Have you ever heard of the research by Dunning and Kruger? It explains why sometimes people perceive things as "crap" when they are not.

You THINK you fixed it when in fact you have not... because you do not know enough about the topics of science involved... but you THINK you do.

LOL Computer programmers talk about "true" random number generators and "pseudo" random number generators and you think that this proves that true randomness actually exists. That's cute.

Maybe we should call it the Dunning, Kruger and Leumas effect.

 

[psionl0]

Just which theories or parts of the theory of evolution do you think don't meet the standard of scientific fact*?

What is this "scientific fact" that you speak of?

The theory of evolution is based on sound scientific principles. It works on any substrate and there are even computer programming algorithms based on evolution.

It is just that many lay people make inferences that are not directly supported by this theory.

 

[Leumas]

LOL Computer programmers talk about "true" random number generators and "pseudo" random number generators and you think that this proves that true randomness actually exists. That's cute.

And of course you have no idea how either one works and hence the quotes around true.

Maybe we should call it the Dunning, Kruger and Leumas effect.

Yes I wish I could add my name to the two researchers who did the research that explains very well your incessant refusal to admit facts but yet obliviously think you know "alternative facts"... as is illustrated by your incessant and repeated refusal to understand the above.

 

[Leumas]

How does that prove that the forces are truly random? All you have said is that we don't know which atom decays next. That doesn't mean that it is purely a random selection process.

So who knows? If no one knows then that is called indeterminism.

Unless you contend that there is a "known method" or someone who can predict thermal noise or the photoelectric effect or radioactive decay of isotopes or airwave static or quantum level subatomic particles behavior... or genetic mutation... then this is definitively evidence of absence of a "known method".

If you do contend such... then you need to prove it... saying "there could be" is not rational and is just Wishful Thinking... and Argumentum ad Ignorantiam... to Rationalize continuing to clench onto a scientifically debunked philosophical conjecture coined by theological agendas centuries ago to rationalize an incessant hope for a possibility of an omniscient Jabberwocky.

 

[Leumas]

What is this "scientific fact" that you speak of?

The theory of evolution is based on sound scientific principles. It works on any substrate and there are even computer programming algorithms based on evolution.

It is just that many lay people make inferences that are not directly supported by this theory.

But you are the expert and your expertise makes you conclude that there are "intelligent forces" behind it all... right?

 

[Leumas]

Well the thread really ended when psionl0 conceded their point about an afterlife and atheism was incorrect....

I didn't think that you would give a truthful representation of my post.

I said that others disagreed with me and there was nothing further to discuss.

So you still think that one cannot be an atheist and also not believe in afterlife??

Are you certain or is there a random chance that you cannot determine which?

 

[psionl0]

And of course you have no idea how either one works and hence the quotes around true.

And here comes the projection.

 

[acbytesla]

How does that prove that the forces are truly random? All you have said is that we don't know which atom decays next. That doesn't mean that it is purely a random selection process.

You're right. It doesn’t.

That said, by all evidence available they appear random. But then again I don’t believe in anything that is only imaginary.

 

[psionl0]

But you are the expert and your expertise makes you conclude that there are "intelligent forces" behind it all... right?

You must be functionally illiterate if that is what you read into my posts.

 

[acbytesla]

How does that prove that the forces are truly random? All you have said is that we don't know which atom decays next. That doesn't mean that it is purely a random selection process.

You're right. It doesn’t.

That said, by all evidence available they appear random. But then again I don’t believe in anything that is only imaginary.

Can you address any of the following challenges?

Can you show that any of it was determined by conscious effort?
Can you demonstrate that anything outside of a silicon cpu or organic brain is capable of conscious thought?
Can you demonstrate the existence any being capable of harnessing the forces that resulted in the universe?
Or our sun?
Or our planet?
Or the life on this planet?

Is it just enough that an ancient peasant said so? Or should one demand actual evidence?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

What is this "scientific fact" that you speak of?

The theory of evolution is based on sound scientific principles. It works on any substrate and there are even computer programming algorithms based on evolution.

It is just that many lay people make inferences that are not directly supported by this theory.

I hate to break it to you but these assertions are not making you sound like you understand scientific theories, scientific facts, or the theory of evolution.

A scientific fact in science has a specific definition. I'm not going to look it up for you, it's easy to find. Last time I tried to give you some answers you falsely claimed you had said just what I had posted. Maybe if you'd actually look it up you could learn something.

As for "sound scientific principles" that sounds like what a kid would answer when called on in class trying to hoodwink the teacher into believing they'd done the assignment.

What sound scientific principles? Your computer algorithm example was seriously wanting.

Just name the principles, thank you. Or tell us specifically what these principles are when it comes to evolution theory. You cannot hoodwink anyone here.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

for many who deny randomness whatsoever they are doing that because they think that their god does not play dice.

Which god would that be? Certainly not the Christian or Hebrew one.

 

[acbytesla]

Insisting on the contrary to science determinism of the universe is all about the determiner and for many who deny randomness whatsoever they are doing that because they think that their god does not play dice.

Which god would that be? Certainly not the Christian or Hebrew one.

Considering Leumas was quoting Einstein, let's go with the Hebrew god.

 

[Leumas]

You're right. It doesn’t.

No he is wrong... it does.... science has proven it...

But he thinks there is a god and thus no matter what science says... it is trumped by that god.

That said, by all evidence available they appear random.

Yes just like Evolution... and that has not stopped god-believers in denying it.... despite scientific proofs for it.

Can you show that any of it was determined by conscious effort?

Watch how the burden of proof is reversed... 3... 2... 1...

Is it just enough that an ancient peasant said so? Or should one demand actual evidence?

No... no... for god defenders the null hypothesis is that there is a god and you need to disprove it... and there is no randomness and you need to prove it... and the universe is deterministic and you need to prove otherwise.

The null hypothesis for god defenders is GOD DID IT... you the atheist have to prove it otherwise.





.

 

[acbytesla]

No he is wrong... it does.... science has proven it...

But he thinks there is a god and thus no matter what science says... it is trumped by that god.

Yes just like Evolution... and that has not stopped god-believers in denying it.... despite scientific proofs for it.

Watch how the burden of proof is reversed... 3... 2... 1...

No... no... for god defenders the null hypothesis is that there is a god and you need to disprove it... and there is no randomness and you need to prove it... and the universe is deterministic and you need to prove otherwise.

The null hypothesis for god defenders is GOD DID IT... you the atheist have to prove it otherwise.

You'll have to explain to me how science can prove the falseness of the unfalsifiable?

 

[Leumas]

You must be functionally illiterate if that is what you read into my posts.

In the present evidence of you never ever answering any questions or saying anything outright... I am going to conclude that you believe "intelligent forces" is behind the deterministic universe.

Com out and say in no unclear terms that you do not believe there is a god or "intelligent forces" or else you are admitting that you do.

Also if you do not believe there is a god or intelligent forces then you need to show WHAT THE HELL is determining the universe to make it deterministic.

If you cannot do that then the null hypothesis is that it is not deterministic as proven by science.. and you need to concede that.

Much like Evolution... do you concede that Evolution is how life evolved on earth... or not... do not obfuscate... say it clearly... do you or not??

If you do not believe in evolution then you believe in "intelligent forces"... do you??

Unless you answer clearly affirming or denying... then you are admitting that...

• You believe in "intelligent forces" (a.k.a. God(s))
• You think this god is the determiner of the deterministic universe
• You believe there is no randomness because this God(s) determined and fixed everything
• You believe this god created life on earth

Now let's see how you will respond... remember any obfuscation is an admittance of the above assertions.




.

 

[Leumas]

You'll have to explain to me how science can prove the falseness of the unfalsifiable?

Science did not prove the falseness of the unfalsifiable... science proved that the universe is indeterministic...

Claiming that the universe is deterministic is like claiming Evolution is not fact... science every day shows that evolution is a fact... anyone who denies that is denying science.

Science has demonstrated that the universe is indeterministic... and anyone who wants to show it is deterministic needs to prove that... not just take it as a null hypothesis because benighted minds thought it was in the past just like they used to think god created life.

 

[psionl0]

Can you address any of the following challenges?

Can you show that any of it was determined by conscious effort?
Can you demonstrate that anything outside of a silicon cpu or organic brain is capable of conscious thought?
Can you demonstrate the existence any being capable of harnessing the forces that resulted in the universe?
Or our sun?
Or our planet?
Or the life on this planet?

Since I am not arguing for any of this, the answer to all of these challenges is "no".

My point was that if there is no ID then true randomness must exist and that hasn't been proven. If that leaves a gap in which an evangelist might try to slip in a god then that is not my problem.

 

[Leumas]

And here comes the projection.

No projection... your incessant persistent posts here and elsewhere prove that you have no idea about what randomness is.

Prove me wrong by for once actually saying things without obfuscation... what is randomness??? Let's see if you get it right.

 

[arthwollipot]

...if there is no ID then true randomness must exist ...

Why?