Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Bump TopicReply to this topicRSS feed Start new topic Start Poll

Outline · [ Standard ] · Linear+

> Questions for Atheists., Ask and answer anything.

chatter77
post Aug 15 2018, 03:38 PM

Enthusiast
*****
Group: Senior Member
Posts: 739

Joined: Nov 2017



QUOTE(slimey @ Aug 14 2018, 07:21 PM)
Then you don’t understand probability at all
*
It will be better if you can explain what is wrong with my answer, that way we'll have a more fruitful discussion.

chatter77
post Aug 15 2018, 03:56 PM

Enthusiast
*****
Group: Senior Member
Posts: 739

Joined: Nov 2017



QUOTE(Spear2 @ Aug 14 2018, 08:07 PM)
Low probability doesn't mean no evolution. To take a layman analogy, very low probability to strike lottery first prize, but still there are people winning first prize, big money every now and then. In the last 30 years there must be hundreds who won. Hence the statement you cited doesn't support your position. In fact you do not have enough information to claim low probability doesn't lead to evolution and this has been actually studied, debated and dismissed by scientists.

What is the process to strike first prize? I think you should know instead of attempting to spin and tap dance. The rest of your post is not related to the citation you made, attempt to spin noted.

If you continue to tap dance and spin, then intellectual discussion is not possible. I can stop now, I have proven my case anyway.
*
Is atheism an advanced form of ignorance?

"In the last 30 years there must be hundreds who won."
You might have the 30 years data to backup your claim, but...

What kind of data do you have for evolution? No one have the opportunity to observe such process.

Please stop using this excuse: "has been actually studied, debated and dismissed by scientists". This is so boring. Please bring the actual data to show for example: how DNA comparison can show ancestry information.

slimey
post Aug 15 2018, 04:02 PM


*******
Group: Senior Member
Posts: 5,718

Joined: Apr 2007
QUOTE(chatter77 @ Aug 15 2018, 03:38 PM)
It will be better if you can explain what is wrong with my answer, that way we'll have a more fruitful discussion.
*
No point for me to do so.
Previous poster already explained yet you reply such bs.

There will be no fruitful discussion with you.
Spear2
post Aug 15 2018, 04:55 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Group: Senior Member
Posts: 2,030

Joined: Oct 2017


QUOTE(chatter77 @ Aug 15 2018, 03:56 PM)
Is atheism an advanced form of ignorance?

"In the last 30 years there must be hundreds who won."
You might have the 30 years data to backup your claim, but...

What kind of data do you have for evolution? No one have the opportunity to observe such process.

Please stop using this excuse: "has been actually studied, debated and dismissed by scientists". This is so boring. Please bring the actual data to show for example: how DNA comparison can show ancestry information.
*
Let's back up a little bit here. The statement you cited from the paper does not support your position and that was your initial challenge. It has been rendered useless to your cause since there is not a hint of it in your subsequent post.

As to your renewed charge of the bolded statement you made, it is not necessary for scientists doing science. So I much rather side with experts than your uneducated opinion.

So I will stop here, since you pose no new challenge to me nor science.

This post has been edited by Spear2: Aug 15 2018, 04:56 PM
chatter77
post Aug 15 2018, 05:24 PM

Enthusiast
*****
Group: Senior Member
Posts: 739

Joined: Nov 2017



QUOTE(Lionel90 @ Aug 14 2018, 07:13 PM)
This is how it becomes "God says God is whatever, pls refer back to what God says", still don't see it? I asked, how to prove that Al-Quran is from God, you said refer back to Al-Quran itself. To make it clear, how do you particularly verify that the verse in Quran about it coming from God? Example, if a killer says he wasn't there at the scene, you verify that claim by checking where he was.
*
If a scientific book has a claim and it provides a method to prove such claim in the book itself, then what is wrong if I say: please refer back to the book if you want to prove the claim yourself?

If someone made a claim that he was the one who wrote a book and provide a method to prove such claim in the book itself, then what is wrong with that?

QUOTE
Then tell me, what am I supposed to gather from the chapter? And why I shouldn't address the notes depend on how he hands it out? You were the one who talked about context, remember? Isn't how it was being revealed the only context available here? Anything other context would have been work of human, no?
Let's address above point first.

This post has been edited by chatter77: Aug 15 2018, 05:27 PM
puchongite
post Aug 15 2018, 05:44 PM

10k Club
********
Group: Senior Member
Posts: 14,653

Joined: May 2008

QUOTE(chatter77 @ Aug 15 2018, 05:24 PM)

If a scientific book has a claim and it provides a method to prove such claim in the book itself, then what is wrong if I say please refer back to the book if you want to prove the claim?

If someone made a claim that he was the one who wrote a book and provide a method to prove such claim in the book itself, then what is wrong with that?
Let's address above point first.
*
You never fail to demonstrate your jumbled up logic. And you take pride in demonstrating this stupxxxty.

Stating/claiming something is true does not mean it is true.

Providing a method to prove such claims also does not make it true.

One of the many reasons why something is true, is that it has been independently verified.

chatter77
post Aug 15 2018, 05:46 PM

Enthusiast
*****
Group: Senior Member
Posts: 739

Joined: Nov 2017



QUOTE(slimey @ Aug 15 2018, 04:02 PM)
No point for me to do so.
Previous poster already explained yet you reply such bs.

There will be no fruitful discussion with you.
*
Okay, you are entitled to your opinion.

chatter77
post Aug 15 2018, 05:59 PM

Enthusiast
*****
Group: Senior Member
Posts: 739

Joined: Nov 2017



QUOTE(puchongite @ Aug 15 2018, 05:44 PM)
You never fail to demonstrate your jumbled up logic. And you take pride in demonstrating this stupxxxty.

Stating/claiming something is true does not mean it is true.

Providing a method to prove such claims also does not make it true.

One of the many reasons why something is true, is that it has been independently verified.
*
You clearly don't understand the context of the discussion.

At this stage, he seems to be having issue with location of the method i.e. it *cannot* be in the same place as the claim itself (Lionel90, please correct me if I misunderstood you).

I'm asking what is wrong if the claim and the method reside in the same location by giving an example of the scientific book?

We have yet to arrive to the method itself. Whether the claim is true or not, we have yet to reach that part.

It's a shame that you used "stupxxxty" word while you were the one who misunderstood the context of the discussion.

This post has been edited by chatter77: Aug 15 2018, 06:01 PM
chatter77
post Aug 15 2018, 06:07 PM

Enthusiast
*****
Group: Senior Member
Posts: 739

Joined: Nov 2017



QUOTE(Spear2 @ Aug 15 2018, 04:55 PM)
Let's back up a little bit here. The statement you cited from the paper does not support your position and that was your initial challenge. It has been rendered useless to your cause since there is not a hint of it in your subsequent post.

As to your renewed charge of the bolded statement you made, it is not necessary for scientists doing science. So I much rather side with experts than your uneducated opinion.

So I will stop here, since you pose no new challenge to me nor science.
*
Just a rhetoric reply. Please try better next time.

BeastX
post Aug 15 2018, 06:10 PM

Genomics Revolution; Proud to be a Scientist
*******
Group: Senior Member
Posts: 4,680

Joined: Jan 2003
From: North Borneo & South Nihon/Nippon


QUOTE(chatter77 @ Aug 15 2018, 05:59 PM)
You clearly don't understand the context of the discussion.

At this stage, he seems to be having issue with location of the method i.e. it *cannot* be in the same place as the claim itself (Lionel90, please correct me if I misunderstood you).

I'm asking what is wrong if the claim and the method reside in the same location by giving an example of the scientific book?

We have yet to arrive to the method itself. Whether the claim is true or not, we have yet to reach that part.

It's a shame that you used "stupxxxty" word while you were the one who misunderstood the context of the discussion.
*
In addition to that: results from the experiment conducted, analysis on the result, conclusion to the results.... and repeatable puchongite, or applicable, if the particular research/experiment is of questionable quality/controversial...

^...and peer reviewed by experts....

This post has been edited by BeastX: Aug 15 2018, 06:16 PM
Lionel90
post Aug 15 2018, 06:12 PM

I lift! Or so I think..
******
Group: Senior Member
Posts: 1,235

Joined: Jul 2016
From: Penang



QUOTE(chatter77 @ Aug 15 2018, 05:24 PM)
If a scientific book has a claim and it provides a method to prove such claim in the book itself, then what is wrong if I say: please refer back to the book if you want to prove the claim yourself?

If someone made a claim that he was the one who wrote a book and provide a method to prove such claim in the book itself, then what is wrong with that?
Let's address above point first.
*
Look, there is no problem with the claims per se, cause they are just claims. Problem is, how do you want to verify those claims as fact? Method prescribed in the book? Would that be a fair assessment of the claims? If a suspect claims that he wasn't at the scene and you can only verify this claim with the method he prescribes, and no other independent way to prove it, would that be a strong evidence of his innocence (setting aside the principle of "innocent until proven guilty")?
ramz
post Aug 16 2018, 04:41 AM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Group: Senior Member
Posts: 3,866

Joined: Jan 2009

God knows better not to use falsification tests as his evidence. But he doesn't. Only Muslims believe in falsification test because they were indoctrinated to accept that method. Falsication test is like: to prove A, you use B method that proves C. At the end of it, u didn't prove A.

Example, falsification test : invent 10 surah like the Quran. This is B method. If test pass, we prove that we can't produce 10 surah like it. That is C. A is still not answered which is "proof the Quran is word of God". Btw, even C fails, coz who is gonna judge if pass or fail? There is no judge! Is like a poem competition with no judge. How do we know who has the best poem?

This post has been edited by ramz: Aug 16 2018, 08:47 AM
Spear2
post Aug 16 2018, 10:33 AM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Group: Senior Member
Posts: 2,030

Joined: Oct 2017


QUOTE(ramz @ Aug 16 2018, 04:41 AM)
God knows better not to use falsification tests as his evidence. But he doesn't. Only Muslims believe in falsification test because they were indoctrinated to accept that method. Falsication test is like: to prove A, you use B method that proves C. At the end of it, u didn't prove A.

Example, falsification test : invent 10 surah like the Quran. This is B method. If test pass, we prove that we can't produce 10 surah like it. That is C. A is still not answered which is "proof the Quran is word of God". Btw, even C fails, coz who is gonna judge if pass or fail? There is no judge! Is like a poem competition with no judge. How do we know who has the best poem?
*
The poetry like surah in the Quran was derived from pagan Arab culture of composing beautiful prose in melodious recitation. Here is a famous pre-Islamic pagan Arab poet who son recited these poems to Muhammad.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zuhayr_bin_Abi_Sulma
chatter77
post Aug 16 2018, 03:43 PM

Enthusiast
*****
Group: Senior Member
Posts: 739

Joined: Nov 2017



QUOTE(Lionel90 @ Aug 15 2018, 06:12 PM)
Look, there is no problem with the claims per se, cause they are just claims. Problem is, how do you want to verify those claims as fact? Method prescribed in the book? Would that be a fair assessment of the claims? If a suspect claims that he wasn't at the scene and you can only verify this claim with the method he prescribes, and no other independent way to prove it, would that be a strong evidence of his innocence (setting aside the principle of "innocent until proven guilty")?
*
Well, what if the method he prescribes is "check my alibi by viewing the cctv"? After addressing the method i.e. watching the cctv, then you can verify if the claim is a fact or not...

Lionel90
post Aug 16 2018, 05:37 PM

I lift! Or so I think..
******
Group: Senior Member
Posts: 1,235

Joined: Jul 2016
From: Penang



QUOTE(chatter77 @ Aug 16 2018, 03:43 PM)
Well, what if the method he prescribes is "check my alibi by viewing the cctv"? After addressing the method i.e. watching the cctv, then you can verify if the claim is a fact or not...
*
Don't confuse yourself, "viewing the CCTV" is surely an independent way to verify the claim (setting aside the possibility of the footage being edited), one that need not the suspect to prescribe in first place. The problem would be when there is no independent way to verify his claim and can only be verified through the doubt-able method prescribed by him. Tying back to my questions, what is the independent method we have to verify the Quran and the Muhammad's claims?
ramz
post Aug 16 2018, 10:00 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Group: Senior Member
Posts: 3,866

Joined: Jan 2009

Chatter YOU made the claim Quran is word of God. YOU prove it! Yes YOU! Not me to prove what u claim! Me taking the falsication test is exactly that!

Example, if I say I'm a millionaire air, I must prove it. Why? Because I made the fucking claim! Chatter I want u to prove I'm not a millionaire. And if u fail to prove I'm not a millionaire, than I am! What fucking logic is that?

And for the quran to incorporate that kind of logic in order to prove its the word of God? To put it very very mildly, is silly. (I know u will report me if I curse god, so I won't)
zamorin
post Aug 18 2018, 03:36 PM

Resident Carouser
*******
Group: Senior Member
Posts: 4,908

Joined: Aug 2011
From: Malaysia Darul Harapan

QUOTE(Lionel90 @ Aug 16 2018, 05:37 PM)
Don't confuse yourself, "viewing the CCTV" is surely an independent way to verify the claim (setting aside the possibility of the footage being edited), one that need not the suspect to prescribe in first place. The problem would be when there is no independent way to verify his claim and can only be verified through the doubt-able method prescribed by him. Tying back to my questions, what is the independent method we have to verify the Quran and the Muhammad's claims?
*
Especially when we know that "so-called-cctv-evidence" was fabricated from the start from a cheap copy and edited multiple times and trying to pass off as some authentic recordings.

This post has been edited by zamorin: Aug 18 2018, 03:38 PM
puchongite
post Aug 18 2018, 05:39 PM

10k Club
********
Group: Senior Member
Posts: 14,653

Joined: May 2008

Dan Barker interviewed by Scott Burdick

Speaking from first hand experience.

Highly recommended for theists.



This post has been edited by puchongite: Aug 18 2018, 08:52 PM

Bump TopicReply to this topicTopic OptionsStart new topic
 

Switch to:
| Lo-Fi Version
0.0861sec    6.31    6 queries    GZIP Disabled
Time is now: 20th August 2018 - 11:36 AM