recogitare.com

stanky wrote: ↑Thu Nov 21, 2024 7:45 pmAlso, the science of judging religion has a bias...and missing data. This because it avoids relativity. We don't know what the religious nut would be doing without his delusion and without the distraction of church. What if he's on such shaky ground that religion is all that keeps him from mass murder.

Ah, the old "what if?" argument, progressing from kindergarten to middle school. What if a giant, blazing comet hits the earth? What if the sun explodes?

Given that almost all murders and wars have been committed by people with 100% faith in god/s, that's a risk I'd cheerfully take. If people realised this is our only shot at life they might be less likely to throw it away in pursuit of someone else's religious goal.

(Should I point out you're directly contradicting yourself calling it the "science of judging religion? Nah)

stanky wrote: ↑Thu Nov 21, 2024 7:45 pm Saying this, of course, will further cement my identity as anti-science.

Nothing to do with science.

stanky wrote: ↑Thu Nov 21, 2024 7:45 pmA closer look will show that i'm doing critical thinking.

At the lowest possible level, sure.

stanky wrote: ↑Thu Nov 21, 2024 7:45 pmThere's more. New discoveries hint at a universe more 'magical' than we'd have preferred, as hard materialists. It's made out of woo, for instance. Came from woo. All is woo. Evidence to the contrary?

Back to kindergarten, sorry.

There's nothing magical about reality. It actually exists, and zero examples of magic have been discovered thus far, all the way down to sub-atomic particles, quarks and double-slit experiments. The fact that we don't yet have a perfect explanation for some phenomena is not a cause to open a "god of the gaps" argument.

Unless you truly are in kindergarten, and they say people regress, so it might even be the case.

None of it came "fom woo" btw.

stanky wrote: ↑Thu Nov 21, 2024 7:45 pmLogic? A badge we stick on things to feel less lost.

Definitely kindergarten, but it's nice to finally get to the nub of your problem.

Why the fuck would I feel lost when logic and evidence gives me a answer I don't like? That's toddler-level childish. reality is what it is and there is no like or dislike about it.

stanky wrote: ↑Thu Nov 21, 2024 7:45 pmLeaves one stranded when entering the unknown. Rational? Defend logic by rejecting the existence of the unknown. It's a tool for navigation, but only within self-imposed limits.[/

There's nothing unscientific about belief in Gods, but there is something unscientific in claiming that one knows there is no God. They don't.
My horse in the race is not about god, which is what TA and sparky assume. It's about science. That's what i'm defending. Science isn't anti-religion. It has nothing to say about God. Believing that science is anti-religion is, oddly enough, religious thinking. And that is critical thinking.

TA says "There's nothing magical about reality."

That speaks volumes.
We exist. It's all ho-hum, and i can explain it. Any one caught wondering will be called names.

There's nothing magical about your reality. Some how you know things, with great certainty, a lot. You're sure that most murders are done by god-believers, for instance. You fart out crap like that on the regular, and even sparky sleeps through it. How do you know what is in the mind of said people? You've had 100% proof about me that's been completely wrong. You spew nonsense as science and it's insulting. It's meant to be insulting. But it's science you insult.
Nothing to learn from you; nothing to teach. And you'll be proud to have nailed it again, in deciding what someone is or isn't, based on nothing.
You've rewritten history here.
And done a dis-service.

Seems a shame,

carry on

TA, I hate to quote Dr._X here, but "You cannot help fools."

So, unless you're enjoying the debate with stanky, pointless as it is, why not just admit he doesn't get it and never will and leave it at that?

grayman wrote: ↑Thu Nov 21, 2024 2:47 pmI have no idea who Sabrina Carpenter is, but here she is:

I quite like her actually.

This is the song under discussion:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLbn61Z4LDI

stanky wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2024 12:42 am You're sure that most murders are done by god-believers, for instance. You fart out crap like that on the regular, and even sparky sleeps through it. How do you know what is in the mind of said people?

See, I like to work on this stuff known as "evidence". I know you're unfamiliar with the concept, but it works like this: when something isn't known for sure, people carry out research to find out what the truth is and the evidence shows very clearly that most heinous crimes are carried out by christians or other religious types. Do you think the 9/11 terrorists were atheists? Even Hitler was a fucking christian.

There's a surprising amount of evidence, but I'll give you one piece for a start, because it goes directly to the heart of why you - and other, ignorant atheists - think christianity is moral. The headline statement is the type of shit that come straight off your keyboard: Why (We Think) Atheists are More Likely to be Serial Killers

https://today.uconn.edu/2017/08/think-a ... l-killers/#

As to wars, even you must have heard the old adage about "No atheists in foxholes". A massive 97% of armed forces identify as religious: https://firstliberty.org/news/how-relig ... -military/

Maybe you could try using some evidence occasionally - I'm always open to it, but you never, ever use any.

sparks wrote: ↑Fri Nov 22, 2024 3:44 amSo, unless you're enjoying the debate with stanky, pointless as it is, why not just admit he doesn't get it and never will and leave it at that?

I probably should but I hate letting bullshit stand.

I'd rather not let bullshit stand as well. But damn! You simply cannot help the willfully ignorant by exposing them to reason.

You're co-creating a myth, fellas.
Your obsession with evidence for theoretical subject is bizarre.
As for science, there is evidence supplied.
You've invented facts. You lack evidence.

It's depressing.
I've been the main contributor of science here. A perusal of my history here will prove that. I've linked endless math and physics demos. There's one up here. No comment there. The insults are infantile; the presumptions, obnoxious and dangerous.

Not much fun.
Too stupid.

off to see the wizard

sparks wrote: ↑Sat Nov 23, 2024 1:47 am I'd rather not let bullshit stand as well. But damn! You simply cannot help the willfully ignorant by exposing them to reason.

twirp

stanky wrote: ↑Sat Nov 23, 2024 6:04 am You're co-creating a myth, fellas.
Your obsession with evidence for theoretical subject is bizarre.
As for science, there is evidence supplied.
You've invented facts. You lack evidence.

It's depressing.
I've been the main contributor of science here. A perusal of my history here will prove that. I've linked endless math and physics demos. There's one up here. No comment there. The insults are infantile; the presumptions, obnoxious and dangerous.

Not much fun.
Too stupid.

off to see the wizard

This one demands a response: Can't agree with anything you just said. When you post what you call evidence, it's usually, as you say, infantile bullshit. And you have not posted enough legit evidence to call yourself "the main contributor of science here." That's just delusional nonsense.

If you don't like it here stank, then do us all a favor and leave.

And the appellation 'twirp' is childish. If that's the best you can do, you really should consider just giving it up. You said it yourself: "Not much fun. Stupid. Obnoxious and dangerous. Infantile." Pot. Kettle. Black.