It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


What is with all the threads attacking atheism/atheists lately?

page: 38
<< 35  36  37    39  40  41 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 11:55 AM

Originally posted by Condemned0625
reply to post by something wicked

I don't need to prove it because it's already probable. Have you counted all those galaxies yet like I told you? I guess not. There's probably more than just billions, as astronomers have said. There could be this many; 1,000,000,000,000,000,000, yet you think other civilizations are improbable. What a bunch of bull# that is. It's not based on "belief", it's based on logical reasoning and empirical observation. Now, if this solar system was all that existed, then other civilizations would be improbable. There's the flaw in your argument because this planetary system is obviously one among quadrillion quadrillions of them, maybe even more than that.

You said you were sure. You then listed the three levels of civilisation you are sure exist. You are now saying you think it's probable. There is as of yet no definitive proof that such civilisations do exist, but you said you are sure.

I'm not saying I don't also find it probable, but then I'm not the one attacking other people for believing in things they have no proof exists.

posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 11:56 AM
reply to post by lowki

Originally posted by lowki

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
There are a large variety of scientists...and very few of them are claiming what you claim

I'm ecclectic as in selecting my own beliefs.

Go ahead and believe what you want, but it doesn't make it real

Certainly each scientist,
makes their own claims,
based on their own research.

And then they submit their research to the community at large in a manner that can be replicated, controlled, and measured.

I'm a Cognitive-Scientist,
I study mental phenomena,
I am now reporting my findings.

I'm sorry, but can you outline the experiment proceedings you went through? Your controls? Margin of error? How do you blind your studies? users generally have high intelligence,
and ability to understand and organize complex information.

I'd disagree. I'd say ATS has an average intelligence population.

Besides, if I'm to report my finding to a scientific-journal,
then might as well convince an atheist (science-belief-system) of it's validity first.

You could actually convince someone best by reporting your findings to a journal...hell, you'd convince a hell of a lot of people if you were right.

Motivated by your senseationalization of your beloved academic review.

Though I dono,
I think you're gonna have to do some more convincing,
so far, well, bad things happen to scientists due to intelligence-agencies,
especially to scientists that know about above-top-secret things...

[citation needed]

Probably would have to have a safe haven for my body,
such as seasteading on the ocean, going where the wind blows.

Being famous has many consequences that need to be taken into consideration.
So I'd rather just let it happen by word of mouth, if indeed it occurs.

[citation needed]
There's no evidence of scientists being hunted down by anyone for their findings.

So? Ancient concepts aren't any more valid than modern ones. More often they're not, they're invalid. Just ask Ptolemy.

Your query is invalid.
Ptolemy is dead. English not your first language? I'm asking out of honesty, because any native speaker should have gotten the joke there. Ancient cosmology, particularly that of Ptolemy, was geocentric. Hence the reference.

The fact that the same concept occurs (repetition),
through several morphological changes (tests),
and the passing of several thousand years (reliability).'re trying to equate the argument from tradition to the scientific method? I'm sorry, but ideas actually have to go through scientific scrutiny, they can't just be held as true because people come up with them, then they change them a bit, and they somehow get passed down for a while. That doesn't make them valid, it makes them popular or lasting. Validity is determined not by popularity or tradition.

it's as conceptually solid a fact as, karma,
what you do to we, we do to you,
known as the Golden Rule,
in philosophy language.

I'm sorry, but the concept of Karma is nothing like that. It's a metaphysical concept that your good or ill deeds will reflect the position you attain in the next life found in Hinduism.

The Golden Rule is the idea that you should treat others in the manner you would wish to be treated. This is first found in Confucius.

Neither of these is 'what you do to we, we do to you'., you made a claim that dinosaurs coexisted with humans. It's not just a 'wrong' claim, but a ridiculous claim. We have no evidence of dinosaurs less than 65 million years ago. None. None at all. There are tens of millions of years between the last dinosaur specimens and the first hominids.

wow you totally ignored my evidence

Because it is not valid evidence. It is a creationist making an unscientific claim. And I already told you that I will break down every single claim individually to show that he is wrong...just not in this thread. There's a whole forum devoted to this sort of thing, it's called "Origins and Creationism".

Before we move on to the actual study of Galactic History, it is important to realize that such research is still in its very early stages. Most of the available information comes from contactees and channellers.

See it comes from the mind, that's in the realm of Cognitive Science.

Except that there's no evidence of 'contactees and channelers' and the entire source you provided contains not a single citation...


cognitive science
The study of the nature of various mental tasks and the processes that enable them to be performed.

I observe data that comes out of people's mind and find patterns.

...that's not how cognitive science works. It's a very complex, interdisciplinary field.

Now, can you please tell me what a 'mind' is?

so are you saying this third-hand knowledge makes you confident?
subject first-hand, tester second-hand, summarizer third-hand.

Yes, because it's knowledge that is outlined in a very rigorous way that I can test if I so choose. It is explained down to the most minute detail to make sure the experiments are testing exactly what they mean to test.

Or do you mean you do the testing yourself?
If so, you'd can test some cognitive-science experiments,
like meditation, remote-viewing, past-life regression, precognition.

Alright, go ahead and outline some experimental procedures first.

lol, yes but human-cloning and gray-aliens Top Secret.

Gray aliens: No evidence for. Hell, their first appearance was on a TV show that the Hills had happened to watch before they ever mentioned them...

And if it were really Top Secret, why the hell is the idea everywhere?

And human cloning? I'm sorry, but you can't claim that it's happening unless you have evidence of it. You cannot claim that it is happening but we don't know that it's happening because it's being kept secret.

You can observe it in your mind.

You cannot observe yourself observing your mind. It automatically invokes the idea of bias.

I'm sure other people than me can observe thing in their minds,
that's exactly why we have a common expression "mind's eye". observation would be someone being able to note that you saw whatever you saw in your mind's eye. An observation is something that can be made by most anyone (except those missing appropriate sense). What you see in your mind's eye is not something that can be confirmed externally.

Not everyone is a visual learner,
some are auditory learners,
or kinesthetic;
all valid senses.

And that has nothing to do with what we're talking about...

You also cannot control experience to any valid degree.

you can control mind-sensations via meditation.
That is one of the first steps of cognition-control.

I thought you said you knew something about science. The word 'control' in science means to put a limitation. You control for something in certain ways. An example would be if you're testing for the effects of a medicine. You control for the placebo effect by making sure that there is a 'control group' which is taking a placebo.

I suggest a quick read up on experimental design.

It's why it's frowned upon to experiment on one's self.

frown is merely a facial expression.

That's not a deep thought, it's silly. It's not a good thing to experiment on yourself. It's dangerous (well, it can be) and it's bad science.

It's not just sometimes dangerous,

really? you're afraid of thinking?....
woah, hold on there..
just clear your mind,
relax, it's okay.

...I said sometimes. Experiments come in a variety of forms. Drug trials? Shouldn't be performed on yourself.

it's always bad science.

bad is subjective.

Not in science. Good science is science that follows the appropriate procedures to ensure experiments are testing what they're supposed to test.

Now, bad science would be subjective science. Science isn't about the subjective.

Cognitive-Science is merely different.

...what you're talking about is not Cognitive-Science. It's some sort of New Age pseudo-metaphysics. Cognitive-Science is a multidisciplinary field that includes neuroscience.

Imagine a letter in your mind,
you've tested that you can do it,
you've repeated something I have done,
and you have been in control the whole time.

Except that we have no way of observing each other do it.

We could merely ask eacho-other to draw what we mind-saw.

And then you're introducing the problems of memory, lack of artistic ability, and all sorts of biases that would result in us directly interacting with each other.

We could also via telepathy,
or by recording our mind-sensations,
there are many patents for such things.
It's basically recording certain microwave frequencies.

Except that your brain doesn't emit microwave frequencies...hell, it doesn't even emit anything on the EM spectrum.

I have not necessarily seen the letter in the same font, size, color, stroke intensity, position in the plane of my mental image, relative rotation of the letter, etc.

I didn't ask you to do any of those things.
I asked you to think of a letter.
Based on ambiguity of the language, you may have thought of an alphabet-letter my intention,
or you could have thought about a piece of paper with writing.

And this merely highlights exactly how flawed your experimentation is...

Okay let me be more clear.
Experiment is to see with your mind's-eye the letter "e",
the exact, font, shade, color, that you see on the screen,
with your eyes closed.

now to prove that you can make a new image in your mind,
see with your mind's-eye two letter e's upside-down next to each other.

draw what you see in your mind.

How was your experiment?
Did you succeed?

if you post the photo of the drawing up,
I can observe what you mind-saw.

I'll just reproduce what I mind saw:


^That's what I mind-saw. Or did I? Do you have any way of testing for dishonesty in these experiments?

And the only way I can confirm these things is by telling you. And I could just make stuff up,

that's the whole point,
you're going to be creating mind-sensations.

Or I could just lie. Lying throws off experiments. And you keep using the word 'mind'...what is a 'mind'?

forget what I experienced,

can simply do another attempt.

But you would not necessarily know that I forgot.

or misinterpret what I experienced.

remember the duality thing?
words prefixed by mis- seem sexist to me.

Well, that's stupid. Seriously, it's just stupid and based in a lack of understanding of linguistics.

fems are perfectly capable of interpreting things correctly.
In fact, they often have the other half of the story.
Yes, that half is different from your half,
but you can still learn from it., you're ignoring the point. So if I don't interpret things correctly, how are you going to test for that?

Not very scientific when "he could just be making it up" is an option you can't simply dismiss.


To cause to exist or happen; bring about; create: made problems for us; making a commotion.

Creating may be feminine,
however it is still valid.

I'm sorry, but you're just not being either scientific or rational. How the hell am I a sexist all of a sudden? And lying is not valid in scientific study, you have to find a way to control for it.

posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 12:06 PM
Can I ask the atheists something?

I am a simple soul. So make it dead simple for my benefit. Here is my question.

Why do you insert yourself into discussions of religious or paranormal nation? Surely you have seen a number of people happily posting and discussing say spiritual oppression and then you guys just jump in.

Did you perhaps think that no one had every heard of atheism or scepticism?

Let me share something of myself with you. I do not like cats I am more of a dog person. Why one earth would I go to a cat appreciation society? The only reasonI would go is to disrupt the meeting.

Help me out here. What is the agenda? Do you need converts like the Xtians?

posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 12:10 PM
reply to post by cLOUDDEAD

Originally posted by cLOUDDEAD

Originally posted by madnessinmysoulWow, hack apologetics, that's really going to be something that demolishes atheism...

Calling someone a "hack apologetic" doesn't make it so, nor help your argument (Ad hominem).

I didn't make an ad hominem attack. If anything I poisoned the well. His validity doesn't have anything to do with being a hack. Hacks can be right sometimes.

His credentials: B.Sc. Univ. of Toronto (1985); Ph.D. MIT (1990). I find it funny that a person born on December 23, 1988, thinks he somehow is more philosophically knowledgeable than someone who got his B.Sc before he was even born. Pretentious much?

So you just called me out on a logical fallacy, but you're not going to bother stopping yourself from participating in three separate logical fallacies?

1: Argument from authority
2: Argument from seniority
3: Argument from ridicule

His credentials, his age, and your ridicule have nothing to do with the validity of his or my claims.

His point is that negative existential claims can indeed be proven. Which you seem to agree with, illustrated by the bolded "until". I posted that to clear up why they can be proven; to show why the "You can't prove a negative" statement is incorrect. End of story.

No, not end of story. This man is claiming that you can prove a negative out of the blue. I'm sorry, but can you prove that Yurelthulas don't exist? No, you can't. Because that's something I just made up off the top of my head. Any claim that lacks a positive argument cannot be argued from in the negative. The negative cannot be proven in a vacuum as this person who happens to be older than me seems to believe.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul On the second issue, your source is entirely wrong. For some reason, this person who holds a philosophy position seems to think that agnosticism and atheism are mutually exclusive, when they are not. In fact, he seems to be of the opinion that atheism can only exist as a reality claim, when it, like theism, is a claim of a position on a subject. There is also an argument from tradition, a logical fallacy you should expect a paid philosopher to avoid, in calling the non-standard definition necessarily wrong. So what if it's non-standard? If you can support it logically, it is valid. The common understanding of this word is wrong and it can be shown to be.

If he's committing an appeal to tradition fallacy, you're committing an appeal to novelty fallacy. And did you even read what he said?
"Yet none of that really matters, for even the non-standard sense of ‘atheism’ does nothing to neutralize evidentialism’s demand for evidence."
They're both still subject to evidentialism:
"evidentialism applies to all ‘doxastic’ attitudes toward a proposition P: believing P, believing not-P, suspending judgment about P, etc."
"But the New Atheists all believe that (probably) no God or other divine reality exists. And that belief must be evidence-based if it is to be rationally held, according to evidentialism. So insisting that atheism isn’t a belief doesn’t help."
Are you denying that Atheists subscribe to the belief that God doesn't exist? If no, why is this "belief" not subject to evidentialism's demands of proportioning belief to evidence?

See above in what you just quoted. It doesn't rest upon evidentialism. I do not believe in god is not a realty claim, it is a skeptical position on the reality claim of god.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoulIt is not a reality claim, it is an expression of skepticism. Now, if you were to claim that you know a deity does not exist, that would be a reality claim, but none of the 'new atheists' actually make this claim so far as I know. As an atheist we do not claim "God does not exist" we claim "We have no good reason to believe in any deity".

See above. And really, none? lol All you have to do is read around these forums and you'll see "fairy tale" this "fairy tale" that, coming from self described "Atheists".

I'm sorry, but you've just repeated back to me the same points that I completely refuted.

And you forgot to reply to this:

Originally posted by madnessinmysou
The whole thing rests upon semantics and a poor application of evidentialism. And this is coming from someone who is only a third year philosophy minor. In applying evidentialism in a manner that a skeptical rejection of a positive claim which lacks evidentiary support requires evidence itself you are basically turning rational discourse on its head. It would require evidence to support disbelief in any proposed idea, including ones I made up on the spot. Carl Sagan knocked this idea out of the park with his garage dragons.

Your authority's argument rests upon the unfounded and illogical assertion that the rejection of an unproven claim is itself a reality claim. Atheists do not believe. This is a completely different animal from believing there isn't any deity.

posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 12:10 PM
reply to post by tiger5

You're hurting people. That's all the reason we need.

posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 12:26 PM
reply to post by something wicked

Of course I attack christians when they assert their beliefs. There's a huge lack of evidence and a huge lack of anything to observe logically. All they can think of for "proof" of their god is an edited copy of an ancient bronze-age text and their feelings about it. That is definitely not empirical observation. There's a difference between that and all of the galaxies you can see with your eyes. You don't have to feel that they're there or believe it without evidence. The evidence has been available for a long time and it certainly has much more worth than a religious belief system.

posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 12:30 PM
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

No I am not hurting anyone. Explain with evidence how I have hurt anyone.

On another point will you be replying to my previous post on scientific proof of ESP?

posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 12:43 PM
reply to post by tiger5

I've already found an experimental flaw in the first experiment in the first link...they were told ahead of time that they were being tested for ESP. Why didn't they control for that?

Now, how is a 3% deviation from average over 100 single sessions is statistically significant. Why didn't they have the tests repeated with more than a sampling of 100 college students?

Hell, I can do a coin flip experiment and get a 3% deviation. On its own, this result is useless. Now, I'll admit that they might be on to something if similar deviations between the sexual and non-sexual images prediction was found.

I would, of course, prefer if I could actually look through the raw data, which is not provided. There is a summary, but I'd like to see each participant provided separately. I'm sure this will become available when it is published properly. Though I'll also see the peer-review responses.

Originally posted by tiger5
OK Your antipathy to Parapsycholgy is your prerogative. However it is a legitimate and rigourous science.

Oh, they try to be one. I'll admit that. They put in a good effort and oftentimes do their best to follow proper experimental procedure. The problem is that the data doesn't support their conclusions.

At least the equal to communications.

...really? Really? I'm sorry, but where is the practical and applicable information that we've received from parapsychology? We've gotten all sorts of things out of communications.

I have highlighted the meta studies. You have not even read the conclussions. Seeing that you can “find the research errors” them you really should challenge them I am sure the cash strapped universities would be more than happy to save money by shutting down the department! I will fly anywhere in the world to watch you do this.

Did I not point out that a meta study can't actually prove much? It might suggest an avenue of inquiry or possibly a change to experimental design, but it doesn't prove anything.

Now, if you could actually direct me to a University that has a parapsychology department (well, one that isn't taking in any money), I'll be glad to.

Did you think that a scientific paper would not have a conclusion? What were the conclusions of the metastudies? Did you read the abstracts or summaries at the start of the paper? What were the conclusions embedded therein? The combined dataset in the metastudy confirmed that ESP exists. Our ability to fly to other planets by mind power seems unlikely.

...and I've already told you that metastudies cannot prove the existence of phenomena. You seem to be unaware of this basic fact.

That is not to say that metastudies are useless. If you're doing a clinical trial and you have 8 similar studies of the same treatment, you can actually get a very good inference from it, just not a concrete one. But that's only because they are the same treatment. Variance is controlled. They still can't show that the treatment is effective unless the trials taken individually point that way.

No my friend yours is a closed mind one that is on a par with David Icke’s followers who believe the royal family are reptiles. That previous comment was harsh but the case for your wilful ignorance is below,

1. You could not use a search engine to quickly check what was on the web.

I'm in the middle of an exam period. I've spent between 8-24 (yes, I spent a few whole days working) hours a day working on assignments, studying for or taking exams in the last two weeks. On top of that, I have a life outside the internet.

2. when I showed you how to use a search engine you then found 3 metastudies. I found considerable more see above.

Wow, now you're just being a troll. I know how to use a search engine. I've been using search engines since the earliest days of the internet.

Now, I don't tend to use Google for use with scientific papers, I often go to direct journals. I actually consulted my University's online journal catalog and PubMed rather than spending some time combing through the internet through Google...and I came up empty. When I did find things through Google I didn't find anything impressive and was sort of short on time.

3. You assume scientific papers on parapsychology are “Pseudoscience”.

Not been shown any evidence that they aren't. Show me a properly controlled, precisely repeated testing method that showed consistent deviations from known averages and I will say otherwise.

Because the sceptical community practice the most blatant of wilful ignorance I thought the only way to prove that psychic phenomena exist by letting you have the experience. The training takes time but I would have thought the effects would have been observed a lot sooner. But given your wilful blindness you will simply accuse me of drugging you or using holographs or whatever a wilfully blind mind will conjure up.

No, I just want you to demonstrate it for me without having me fork out 18 months pay.

And that is the fallacy of most sceptic. They are wilfully blindadn arrogantly believe that their grasp of scientific experimental design is greater than that of current professional academic scientists. How absurd!

Are you done with the giant ad hominem attack from authority? I mean, 'professional academic scientists'? Is that even necessary? Scientists. That's enough. I mean, you're calling us ignorant and then saying that authority is right, you don't need to overexpose the logical fallacy.

Now, my father happens to be a 'professional academic scientist', I'm actually helping him with his experimental procedure. Even scientists make mistakes. It's why they have peer review in the first place.

posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 12:45 PM
reply to post by something wicked

Nope, it was in a metaphorical context. I was confused about my religious leanings when I joined. I had gone through my deconversion from Catholicism, into a period of experimentation, and then moved on to Theravada Buddhism...but I was still confused because I just couldn't get myself to believe no matter how good or healthy or beneficial I tried to tell myself belief was.

It was a confusing time, now my username is confusing. Fittingly poetic.

posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 12:46 PM
reply to post by something wicked

What do you mean by atheism is disbelief in my God? Does that mean you may believe in someone elses? Could you pass me a copy of your atheism rulebook? Where does it say atheists are allowed to believe in one persons God but not anothers?

Atheism Handbook
RULE 1 of 1
Thou shalt unless you choose otherwise , believe or disbelief anything you choose at any given time

Indeed dude I don't believe your god exists if your god happens to go by the name of yahwhe/jesus, likewise if you don't believe Thor exists then a Thorian will consider you an atheist .

posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 12:58 PM
reply to post by The Djin

But Thor exists! There's ancient mythology that describes him in texts and I "feel" his presence. I have faith that he exists, despite the fact that the evidence does not exist! Thor's adversary is fooling christians into believing that their god exists by magically manipulating their thoughts...with magic!

posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 12:59 PM
reply to post by something wicked

Originally posted by something wicked
Soooo, let's cut to the chase.

You could have done this with the 'reply to' button if that was what you were going to say...

You are saying Christianity is stupid.

No, I'm demonstrating why Christianity is stupid in other threads.

You are asking why so many threads attack atheism

Yes, considering that atheism is just this one thing about not holding a belief in deities, it's confusing.

and yet you attack Christianity - interestingly you focus on that one faith, perhaps you have some underlying issues there.

No, I just know the first rule of entertainment, argumentation, and conversation: know your audience.

Why would I go off on a thread talking about Islam when it would have less impact than a similar thread about Christianity. Were there more diversity on here I would make more diverse threads.

Christianity is also just the religion I know best. I did spend a lot of time studying other religions looking for the right one, but Christianity is the one I was brought up in and thus the one I studied the most.

You also focus on the Old Testament whereas Christianity by it's very nature is focussed on the New Testament.

I'd focus more on the New Testament but people get a lot angrier when you do that. Whenever I point out contradictions in the Bible, the Gospels are my go-to source for quick ones. I mention the Epistles, though I do admit that I don't mention them as often these days. I also am quick to point out that Jesus wasn't right about everything.

Would you like to talk about the stupidity of other faiths while you're at it?

If there was enough of an audience, which there isn't.

Your division of atheism is frankly stupid.

No, it really isn't.

Implicit atheism (including babies) is nothing more than a philosophical luxury. A baby would have no concept of anything outside its very close environment (parent, food, warmth, coldness) - why on earth is it worth highlighting they have no concept of God?

Because they don't. They are atheists. They don't believe in a deity. It doesn't stop people from initiating them into religions against their will though. I mean, they don't even have object permanence!

Atheism is very simple - you understand the concept of a deity and reject it - that's it, stop trying to dress up something that is very straightforward.

It's actually simpler than that:

You do not believe in any deity.

You don't have to understand the concept or even know of the concept to be an atheist. Anyone who doesn't believe in any deity is an atheist. If anything the tacking on of 'you understand the concept of a deity' is an unnecessary addition.

Any further division of that is ridiculous, it's a binary division, yes or no.

So an argument from ridicule? That's where this is going? Instead of trying to address my point in any way you're just going to dismiss it as ridiculous?

To argue anything else is fatuous and is again a philiosphical luxury you are allowing yourself to make lack of belief in a deity into something more sophisticated than it is.

Yep, argument from ridicule it is.

Is there really a group of atheists?

There are groups, but no single one. They're mostly community groups in big cities, but there are a few bigger ones. Of course, the number of atheists in the world vs the number of atheists total in these groups...well, there are 500-750+ million atheists in the world and these groups never break into the millions...

Are you members of a cult? Do you have meetings to discuss your lack of belief? Hey, why not select one day of the week to have these meetings and call it your special day?

Oh, I see where you're going. Instead of addressing my points you're going to try to ridicule me. Thank you for the intellectual dishonesty.

posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 01:05 PM

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by The Revenant

It has a dogma, sects, and idols. Call it what you will, it is a religion now.

FALSE. Please try to stop passing off fiction as fact, it's beneath you Gorman!


posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 02:03 PM

Originally posted by Condemned0625
reply to post by something wicked

Of course I attack christians when they assert their beliefs. There's a huge lack of evidence and a huge lack of anything to observe logically. All they can think of for "proof" of their god is an edited copy of an ancient bronze-age text and their feelings about it. That is definitely not empirical observation. There's a difference between that and all of the galaxies you can see with your eyes. You don't have to feel that they're there or believe it without evidence. The evidence has been available for a long time and it certainly has much more worth than a religious belief system.

The evidence is there that your civilisations on three different exo planets all exist is it? You did say you were sure so please, share with us.....

posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 02:05 PM
reply to post by something wicked

civilisations on three different exo planets

Do explain, i must have missed something.



posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 02:20 PM
reply to post by something wicked

I never claimed that those 3 particular hypothetical exoplanets existed. That scenario was an example. Did you even read it properly? The word 'Example' before the example is given should be a clear indication, but you must have missed it.

posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 02:35 PM
reply to post by something wicked

If you didn't know what the concept of an invisible man was, you wouldn't be in a position to accept of reject it with any degree of certainty.

One doesn't need any degree of certainty nor uncertainty do believe or not believe something, indeed faith is based upon uncertainty ie zero requirement of evidence.

posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 02:39 PM

Originally posted by Condemned0625
reply to post by The Djin

But Thor exists! There's ancient mythology that describes him in texts and I "feel" his presence. I have faith that he exists, despite the fact that the evidence does not exist! Thor's adversary is fooling christians into believing that their god exists by magically manipulating their thoughts...with magic!

You got me there mate so he does, I'd better get my cheque book out and buy myself a miracle, which one of the invisible men in the sky would your recommend I make it out to ? lol

posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 02:53 PM
reply to post by The Djin

Probably all of them, except the god that christians, muslims and jews believe in. He's the worst of them all. Your donation would be mostly appreciated by Satan because he needs more funding for his flying saucer workshop. Fooling people with "demons" disguised as metallic spacecrafts (as some christians claim) is very costly work.
edit on 2/4/2011 by Condemned0625 because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 4 2011 @ 02:59 PM
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

On the issue of papers and review I will go with the experts. By example I can compute all sorts of thing to do with petrol but am no mechanic. As a matter of fact there maybe large hamsters on a wheel beneath the bonnet.

I cannot believe that the flaws that you found are valid. I am not insulting you but academia is gruelling and gthe Peer review system is tough. No You are an undergraduate from another disciplin. it seems unlikely.

I do not believe that it is the communications part of the degree so is it the philosophical part. Is it the formal logic aspect?

In a similar manner why does your Dad come to you for advice. I am both fascinated and also troubled in a way. From what you say your dad is a seasoned experimental scientist so why? Did you study the philosophy of science?

Sorry something eludes me about this aspect of your activities and I cannot put my finger on it.

Is there a flaw in the teaching of scientists?

Best wishes for the Exams

edit on 4-2-2011 by tiger5 because: (no reason given)

<< 35  36  37    39  40  41 >>

log in