Most atheists do not know what science says about our origins

[JEROME DA GNOME]

yes, but do you agree that missunderstanding can arise from such widely varying usage of a word.

Yes, that is why I defined my meaning when I used the word.

 

[joobz]

Yes, that is why I defined my meaning when I used the word.

fair.

 

[quixotecoyote]

fair.

Disagree. That's what I was actually referring to by 'doublespeak', not that the word can have multiple meanings, but that both meanings are being used at the same time.

If you say scientists have faith in their theories in an R&P thread, you are invoking the concept of religious faith to detract from science. Otherwise you'd use the term confidence or trust.

At the same time, by acknowledging that the term can have a meaning synonymous with confidence, you create a rhetorical hedge that makes it difficult for people to call you on it.

I was using doublespeak in the sense that Jerome was using a term that has a defined meaning, confidence, which was syntactically correct in context, but was using the different meaning, belief without/in spite of evidence, to advance his point (goddit is equally plausible to naturalism, or some variant thereof).

It's a common creationist/ID'er/fundie tactic, but it uses the same strategies that make passive aggressive behavior so difficult to deal with.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Disagree. That's what I was actually referring to by 'doublespeak', not that the word can have multiple meanings, but that both meanings are being used at the same time.

Not when the user of the term is defining it when used.

You are ignoring facts to make an argument which does not exist in this case.

 

[quixotecoyote]

Not when the user of the term is defining it when used.

You are ignoring facts to make an argument which does not exist in this case.

Yes of course you defined it when used. I discussed that in my above post.

You want to drag science down to the level of religion in the origins discussion.

You use the term faith to describe how science works.

But because you defined it as confidence in evidence, I'm supposed to pretend you didn't know exactly what you were doing when you chose the term?

Pull the other one Jerome, it's got bells on it.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

It's a common creationist/ID'er/fundie tactic, but it uses the same strategies that make passive aggressive behavior so difficult to deal with.

This is evidence that you are projecting an avatar and ignoring the ideas presented. I understand that it is easy to regurgitate responses to known thoughts, but I would suggest that if you decline this inclination your thinking ability will be enhanced.

 

[joobz]

Disagree. That's what I was actually referring to by 'doublespeak', not that the word can have multiple meanings, but that both meanings are being used at the same time.

He did define his usage, so I can't fault him for that. The challenge is to ensure usage remains consistent throughout the discussion.

I was using doublespeak in the sense that Jerome was using a term that has a defined meaning, confidence, which was syntactically correct in context, but was using the different meaning, belief without/in spite of evidence, to advance his point (goddit is equally plausible to naturalism, or some variant thereof).

It's a common creationist/ID'er/fundie tactic, but it uses the same strategies that make passive aggressive behavior so difficult to deal with.

Yes, jerome has equated creationism as equally invalid as mechanistic abiogenesis.

And this is the point I think needs direct adderessing. It is not equally reasonable to say that a mechanist explanation exists for life's origin vs. a creation explanation.
As I said, We have continually seen mechanisms to exist for everything in nature. We do not have evidence for a creator in anything in nature.

As such, faith in mechanistic abiogenesis is similar to faith in the sun rising.

But faith in a creationism is faith without any evidence and remains a religious argument.

 

[quixotecoyote]

This is evidence that you are projecting an avatar and ignoring the ideas presented. I understand that it is easy to regurgitate responses to known thoughts, but I would suggest that if you decline this inclination your thinking ability will be enhanced.

Simple advice:

If you do not wish to be called on using creationist/fundie/ID'er tactics - stop using them. This includes word games where you define a word in one way while using it in another.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Simple advice:

If you do not wish to be called on using creationist/fundie/ID'er tactics - stop using them. This includes word games where you define a word in one way while using it in another.

You have evidence that I used the word in another way after I defined it?

If not than you are at this point making a lie through implication.


Is this really the extent of your thinking ability?

 

[quixotecoyote]

You have evidence that I used the word in another way after I defined it?

If not than you are at this point making a lie through implication.


Is this really the extent of your thinking ability?

I made my argument and your only response was ad-hom whining, 'you're projecting, so you're wrong." Waaaaahh.

Until you can come up with a valid reason to use 'faith' as a descriptor of scientific theory rather than confidence or trust, my point stands and your dishonesty is displayed.

You may have the last word on this topic, unless you rise to meet the above challenge.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

You have evidence that I used the word in another way after I defined it?

If not than you are at this point making a lie through implication.


Is this really the extent of your thinking ability?

I made my argument and your only response was ad-hom whining, 'you're projecting, so you're wrong." Waaaaahh.

Until you can come up with a valid reason to use 'faith' as a descriptor of scientific theory rather than confidence or trust, my point stands and your dishonesty is displayed.

You may have the last word on this topic, unless you rise to meet the above challenge.

You are a confirmed liar and you have no clue as the the definition of ad-hom.

 

[quixotecoyote]

He did define his usage, so I can't fault him for that. The challenge is to ensure usage remains consistent throughout the discussion.

That was my point, usage is consistently forked. There's a thread running around now that discusses how some woo's use 'energy' the same way Jerome is using 'faith.'

---
Matter cannot created or destroyed, only transformed, sometimes into energy. We are made of matter, therefore we cannot be destroyed, only transformed into energy.
---

As written, it is arguably correct (the detailed physics on matter->energy is a bit over my head). But we both know that even though the physics definition of energy is the one stated, it's being used in a mystical sense.

That kind of usage is the only way you can talk about faith in mechanistic abiogenesis and faith in a creationism in the same breath. One can say one is talking scientifically, but the usage demands a religious meaning.

 

[The Man]

I prefer this definition: a short pithy saying expressing a general truth. It is my name after all.

Did you know that you seem to not understand English or how to use a dictionary. One does not get to define the words others use at their whim. I think this may by why you can do nothing more than tell me I am wrong on every subject as you follow me about the forum. Shoo, shoo little puppy, find a fire hydrant to pee on.

Funny, I did not see paranoid and delusional under the definition of Gnome, but whatever, you define your fantasies any way you want.

There has to be a "poof" somewhere.



Science ingeniously does not define life succinctly, it's definition is pliant.

Well there you have it, no poof, just becoming compliant with a pliant definition when there was no compliance before.

I prefer not to make unsubstantiated guesses to which the evidence does not point. I certainly understand why humans want to have answers, but I will not accept answers which are nothing more than beliefs based upon desire.

Unless of course they are your desires.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

That was my point, usage is consistently forked. There's a thread running around now that discusses how some woo's use 'energy' the same way Jerome is using 'faith.'

Yet, I defined the term and never strayed from that definition.


You are a liar.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

The OP seems to be constantly validated by the posters in this thread as many seem to be able to do nothing more than lie and name call.



Children in a sandbox.

 

[wollery]

Looks like Jerome's ignoring me.

I wonder why.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Looks like Jerome's ignoring me.

I wonder why.

Not at all, I don't ignore any ideas.

What did I miss?

 

[joobz]

The OP seems to be constantly validated by the posters in this thread as many seem to be able to do nothing more than lie and name call.



Children in a sandbox.

you keep making this statement, and it continues to be wrong.

In any case, care to address this point?

And this is the point I think needs direct adderessing. It is not equally reasonable to say that a mechanist explanation exists for life's origin vs. a creation explanation.
As I said, We have continually seen mechanisms to exist for everything in nature. We do not have evidence for a creator in anything in nature.

As such, faith in mechanistic abiogenesis is similar to faith in the sun rising.

But faith in a creationism is faith without any evidence and remains a religious argument.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

And this is the point I think needs direct adderessing. It is not equally reasonable to say that a mechanist explanation exists for life's origin vs. a creation explanation.
As I said, We have continually seen mechanisms to exist for everything in nature. We do not have evidence for a creator in anything in nature.

Please explain how a "creator" could not be defined as a mechanism.

 

[wollery]

I posted a simple explanation of the evidence and its logical conclusions, yet you completely failed to address that post. If my logic was lacking, as you suggest, then show where and how. Instead of just saying "But, but, but, there's no evidence and the logic's wrong", critique the presented evidence and logic. Otherwise, stfu.

No matter what logic and evidence one uses in his argument if the initial premise is false than the entirety of the argument can be discounted. If there is no evidence for the room and the room does not exist than there is no elephant in the room.

What initial premise would that be?

See, you're still not actually providing a critique, just saying, "No, it's wrong". You've gone from saying, "the elephant isn't there", to saying, "the room isn't there", but you still don't actually say why.

What is wrong with the initial premise?