ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 2nd July 2017, 02:39 AM   #41
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
I didn't mention anywhere that that meant exclusively...
There was no point at all underlying your comment and suggestion of dishonesty, then?

Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
A paradigm may be a pattern, contrary to your belief:
Responding with something that's irrelevant to the point as if it were somehow relevant is a fallacy, at last check. You're trying to dodge the point by invoking something that adds no meaningful information regarding the actual issue at hand.


Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
You might have missed it, but science cannot include non-science, where as belief can...
You might have missed it, but you're invoking blatantly fallacious logic when you're trying to use that to justify what you are. Does red oppose crimson because red can refer to other shades of red than crimson as well as crimson, while crimson can only refer to crimson? No. It cannot be validly said to do so, unless we were to accept that crimson is "opposed" to crimson. As that relates to your claims, a necessary consequence of the logic that you're employing is that science is opposed to science.


Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
False.
You may notice that I referred to two groups:
(1) Heathens.
(2) Theists.

Heathens may include atheists.
Heathens, in the real world, include both theists and atheists. Denying reality is not a trait that you should be embracing if you actually value science.

Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
It is still observable that your thoughts on the matter are errors.
You've completely failed to demonstrate such without invoking fallacious logic, thus, I cannot responsibly accept your claim.

Originally Posted by Explorer View Post
Science is not a "belief", it is a methodological process used to help determine whether not a belief is true.
The scientific method is inherently based in belief and people accepting it and employing it is also inherently driven by belief. There is, quite literally, no way around that, if one is interested in dealing with the reality of what's going on. It's not magical in the least at its base, after all, unlike you would seem to suggest here with your poorly based attempt at denial and there's no need to descend to the level of the "woos" who try to misconstrue what's actually going on to gain fallacious support for the answer that they desire. In application, after one accepts (in line with the first of the definitions of belief) the premises that the scientific method rests upon, which were specifically chosen to try to be as reasonable and useful as possible, then the results of that method of evaluation help to inform an assessment about how reasonable it is to accept a belief.

Alternately and more simply, your claim can be refuted by saying "The scientific method is a set of beliefs that we employ to evaluate what we can to try to help determine if it's reasonable to accept a belief."

Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
I ask why beings bother to contact belief.
There are a few answers, dependent on what, exactly, you're referring to as belief. You seem to have issues with conflating different usages of the term, though, so no direct answer can be given to this.

Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
Belief is not only redundant (science is true regardless of belief),
Even taken alone, this part would be enough to demonstrate your remarkable foolishness on this subject, quite frankly. It doesn't get any better with the context, either. "Belief" is not inherently redundant because it addresses other concerns, like whether something is reasonable to accept even after all the many uncertainties are taken into account, rather than a direct claim that something is definitely the case. Also of note is that science is NOT true regardless of belief, no matter how many times you try to religiously equate the two. Reality is true regardless of belief. Science is fairly certainly the best tool at our disposal by far for determining how well various beliefs align with reality, but it is not truth itself and nor is it anywhere close to foolproof.

Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
but also, belief inherently opposes science; it concerns especially non-evidence.
As fallacious and unimpressive as the last many times you tried to assert this and were refuted.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.

Last edited by Aridas; 2nd July 2017 at 02:57 AM.
Aridas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2017, 03:42 AM   #42
ProgrammingGodJordan
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,342
Originally Posted by Aridas View Post
There was no point at all underlying your comment and suggestion of dishonesty, then?



Responding with something that's irrelevant to the point as if it were somehow relevant is a fallacy, at last check. You're trying to dodge the point by invoking something that adds no meaningful information regarding the actual issue at hand.




You might have missed it, but you're invoking blatantly fallacious logic when you're trying to use that to justify what you are. Does red oppose crimson because red can refer to other shades of red than crimson as well as crimson, while crimson can only refer to crimson? No. It cannot be validly said to do so, unless we were to accept that crimson is "opposed" to crimson. As that relates to your claims, a necessary consequence of the logic that you're employing is that science is opposed to science.




Heathens, in the real world, include both theists and atheists. Denying reality is not a trait that you should be embracing if you actually value science.



You've completely failed to demonstrate such without invoking fallacious logic, thus, I cannot responsibly accept your claim.



The scientific method is inherently based in belief and people accepting it and employing it is also inherently driven by belief. There is, quite literally, no way around that, if one is interested in dealing with the reality of what's going on. It's not magical in the least at its base, after all, unlike you would seem to suggest here with your poorly based attempt at denial and there's no need to descend to the level of the "woos" who try to misconstrue what's actually going on to gain fallacious support for the answer that they desire. In application, after one accepts (in line with the first of the definitions of belief) the premises that the scientific method rests upon, which were specifically chosen to try to be as reasonable and useful as possible, then the results of that method of evaluation help to inform an assessment about how reasonable it is to accept a belief.

Alternately and more simply, your claim can be refuted by saying "The scientific method is a set of beliefs that we employ to evaluate what we can to try to help determine if it's reasonable to accept a belief."



There are a few answers, dependent on what, exactly, you're referring to as belief. You seem to have issues with conflating different usages of the term, though, so no direct answer can be given to this.



Even taken alone, this part would be enough to demonstrate your remarkable foolishness on this subject, quite frankly. It doesn't get any better with the context, either. "Belief" is not inherently redundant because it addresses other concerns, like whether something is reasonable to accept even after all the many uncertainties are taken into account, rather than a direct claim that something is definitely the case. Also of note is that science is NOT true regardless of belief, no matter how many times you try to religiously equate the two. Reality is true regardless of belief. Science is fairly certainly the best tool at our disposal by far for determining how well various beliefs align with reality, but it is not truth itself and nor is it anywhere close to foolproof.



As fallacious and unimpressive as the last many times you tried to assert this and were refuted.

The prior points of mine are observably valid.

Perhaps you should consider doubly or perhaps triply reading your response above.

Simply, belief by the standard definition, may include non science, whereas science may not.
ProgrammingGodJordan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2017, 03:46 AM   #43
ProgrammingGodJordan
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,342
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
Heathens also includes theists.
Yes.

You may have noticed that in the original post, I expressed of heathens .. "and theists too".

Thusly, it is quite clear that I had been referring to atheist aligned heathens...
ProgrammingGodJordan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2017, 03:51 AM   #44
ProgrammingGodJordan
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,342
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Pay attention: I was refering to bacteria, which YOU brought up.



It's interesting that you're only paraphrasing yourself, here, and dishonestly so at that.



It only appears that way because you lost track of the conversation.



I love that you're quoting yourself as a refutation.
I had mentioned insects, bacteria and non human animals.

You had not specified of bacteria in your response via reply 20.

You had blundered, and thusly it is time to move on. Ironically, it is you that had lost track of the conversation.
ProgrammingGodJordan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2017, 04:57 AM   #45
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 66,187
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
I had mentioned insects, bacteria and non human animals.

You had not specified of bacteria in your response via reply 20.
Because it was bloody obvious, given that you mentioned two specifically non-thinking lifeform types a third category which includes ALL animals (of which insects are a subcategory, by the way).

Quote:
You had blundered
Don't blame your inability to understand what people are telling you on others.

Quote:
Ironically, it is you that had lost track of the conversation.
I can't possibly lose track of the single thing I said. If you didn't focus on trying to "win" the conversation you wouldn't make such stupid mistakes.
__________________
<Roar!>
Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2017, 05:11 AM   #46
steenkh
Philosopher
 
steenkh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 5,091
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
There is a non-trivial probability that life's goal state/purpose/meaning occurs on the horizon of optimization. (See "Dissipative Adaptation", by physicist Jeremy England)
Wait ... you are saying that scientists have found the meaning of life?

That's amazing!

Well, actually, I read Quanta Magazine's article on "Dissipative Adaptation in Driven Self-assembly" and there was no mention of meaning of life. Do you think I would find it if I paid for Jeremy England's original article?
__________________
Steen

--
Jack of all trades - master of none!
steenkh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2017, 05:15 AM   #47
Porpoise of Life
Master Poster
 
Porpoise of Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 2,998
You know PGJ, we all agree with the first of what you're saying.
We all know that science is the best tool we have for understanding the world around us. We all agree that holding faith over empiricism is dangerous and has lead to many tragedies. You don't have to convince us of that.
Many of us would even agree with you that it is best to question all our own assumptions and be prepared to adjust our world view in the light of new evidence.

The problem is how you convey your message. The idiosyncratic robot speak. The fallacies. Getting bogged down in discussing specific words rather than the arguments that are being made.
Porpoise of Life is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2017, 08:51 AM   #48
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,115
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
Noticing your username, what do you garner is life's purpose?

Unless one of you is a Geordie, it seems you have misread Porpoise of Life's username.
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2017, 11:56 AM   #49
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
The prior points of mine are observably valid.

Perhaps you should consider doubly or perhaps triply reading your response above.

Simply, belief by the standard definition, may include non science, whereas science may not.
Does red oppose crimson because red can refer to other shades of red than crimson as well as crimson, while crimson can only refer to crimson?
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.
Aridas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2017, 12:06 PM   #50
ProgrammingGodJordan
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,342
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Because it was bloody obvious, given that you mentioned two specifically non-thinking lifeform types a third category which includes ALL animals (of which insects are a subcategory, by the way).



Don't blame your inability to understand what people are telling you on others.



I can't possibly lose track of the single thing I said. If you didn't focus on trying to "win" the conversation you wouldn't make such stupid mistakes.

Conversation history:

(1) Jordan: Insects, bacteria, and non-human animals don't appear to require belief to fulfill tasks
(2) Argumemnon: It goes without saying that beings without the ability to think can't believe..

It appeared to be a blunder, because that bacteria don't think at all, is unclear:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0114143310.htm
http://scienceblogs.com/evolvingthou...acteria-think/

You had not specified of the bacteria class in your earlier speech, and so you unavoidably blundered...

(This is because that bacteria can't think at all, is not a valid statement)

Last edited by ProgrammingGodJordan; 2nd July 2017 at 12:10 PM.
ProgrammingGodJordan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2017, 12:09 PM   #51
ProgrammingGodJordan
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,342
Originally Posted by steenkh View Post
Wait ... you are saying that scientists have found the meaning of life?

That's amazing!

Well, actually, I read Quanta Magazine's article on "Dissipative Adaptation in Driven Self-assembly" and there was no mention of meaning of life. Do you think I would find it if I paid for Jeremy England's original article?
Here is another article:

"MIT Physicist Proposes New 'Meaning of Life' "

http://bigthink.com/ideafeed/mit-phy...eaning-of-life
ProgrammingGodJordan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2017, 12:14 PM   #52
Mojo
Mostly harmless
 
Mojo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 29,115
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
Here is another article:

"MIT Physicist Proposes New 'Meaning of Life' "

http://bigthink.com/ideafeed/mit-phy...eaning-of-life

Would steenkh discover the meaning of life if he paid for Jeremy England's original article?
__________________
"You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield

"The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky
Mojo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2017, 12:15 PM   #53
ProgrammingGodJordan
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,342
Originally Posted by Porpoise of Life View Post
You know PGJ, we all agree with the first of what you're saying.
We all know that science is the best tool we have for understanding the world around us. We all agree that holding faith over empiricism is dangerous and has lead to many tragedies. You don't have to convince us of that.
Many of us would even agree with you that it is best to question all our own assumptions and be prepared to adjust our world view in the light of new evidence.

The problem is how you convey your message. The idiosyncratic robot speak. The fallacies. Getting bogged down in discussing specific words rather than the arguments that are being made.
That's odd.

There doesn't appear to be any such fallacies; the original post expresses that belief is both redundant, and perhaps dangerous, as is expressed by the portions highlighted in yellow above.
ProgrammingGodJordan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2017, 12:15 PM   #54
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 66,187
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
Conversation history:

(1) Jordan: Insects, bacteria, and non-human animals don't appear to require belief to fulfill tasks
(2) Argumemnon: It goes without saying that beings without the ability to think can't believe..

It appeared to be a blunder, because that bacteria don't think at all, is unclear:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0114143310.htm
http://scienceblogs.com/evolvingthou...acteria-think/
Bacteria don't have nervous systems. Ergo they don't think.

Quote:
You had not specified of the bacteria class in your earlier speech, and so you unavoidably blundered...
No I didn't specify because I thought you were smart enough to understand that.

Quote:
(This is because that bacteria can't think at all, is not a valid statement)
I'm not sure you're clear on what "valid" means.

All this is a distraction and you know it. You omitted the start of the conversation in your history, which I guess is very convenient to you. You named bacteria and insects and such as a counter to me saying that belief is a useful evolutionary trait, but, and this is how that word should be used, your counter was not valid, because it doesn't address what I said even if it's true.

Do you know why?

Because legs are a useful evolutionary trait as well, but bacteria don't have it. By your logic it means that legs are not useful.
__________________
<Roar!>
Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2017, 12:18 PM   #55
ProgrammingGodJordan
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,342
Originally Posted by Mojo View Post
Would steenkh discover the meaning of life if he paid for Jeremy England's original article?
No; see physicist Jeremy England's public domain paper.

Last edited by ProgrammingGodJordan; 2nd July 2017 at 12:20 PM.
ProgrammingGodJordan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2017, 12:27 PM   #56
ProgrammingGodJordan
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,342
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Bacteria don't have nervous systems. [Ergo they don't think.



No I didn't specify because I thought you were smart enough to understand that.



I'm not sure you're clear on what "valid" means.

All this is a distraction and you know it. You omitted the start of the conversation in your history, which I guess is very convenient to you. You named bacteria and insects and such as a counter to me saying that belief is a useful evolutionary trait, but, and this is how that word should be used, your counter was not valid, because it doesn't address what I said even if it's true.

Do you know why?

Because legs are a useful evolutionary trait as well, but bacteria don't have it. By your logic it means that legs are not useful.

If I had detected an error in my expressions, I would have then publicly acknowledged such.


However, I had made no such error; I had not omitted any text; your invalid response concerned the lack of specificity amidst bacteria, so it is fair to start where I first mentioned bacteria.

Anyway, you might want to read the articles I enlisted.



So you did need to specify, otherwise your remark is invalid; for some class of bacteria are observed as thinking beings.

Time to move on, you had long blundered, and you further cement your errors by ignoring your blunder's presence..

Last edited by ProgrammingGodJordan; 2nd July 2017 at 12:32 PM.
ProgrammingGodJordan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2017, 03:05 PM   #57
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 66,187
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
[hilite]
If I had detected an error in my expressions, I would have then publicly acknowledged such.
Which just shows how poor your reasoning skills and self-awareness are that you didn't spot the errors.

Quote:
However, I had made no such error; I had not omitted any text
Now that's a lie. Everyone can go back and see the first two posts of the conversation and the context they give to your responses. This is ignoring the fact that you altered your own responses the first time around in order to make the conversation appear as if you were in the right when you were in fact wrong. So that's two lies for the price of one.

Quote:
your invalid response concerned the lack of specificity amidst bacteria
I guess my assumption was quite wrong then. I shan't make that mistake again.

Quote:
Anyway, you might want to read the articles I enlisted.
No need. It is physically impossible for bacteria to think, given that they lack brains. You simply don't understand what the articles are talking about.

Quote:
So you did need to specify, otherwise your remark is invalid
Stop using that word. You don't even know what it means.

Quote:
Time to move on
I don't believe you. You said that already and didn't move on.

Now, do you want to actually move on? If so, address your errors.
__________________
<Roar!>
Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2017, 06:24 PM   #58
ProgrammingGodJordan
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,342
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Which just shows how poor your reasoning skills and self-awareness are that you didn't spot the errors.



Now that's a lie. Everyone can go back and see the first two posts of the conversation and the context they give to your responses. This is ignoring the fact that you altered your own responses the first time around in order to make the conversation appear as if you were in the right when you were in fact wrong. So that's two lies for the price of one.



I guess my assumption was quite wrong then. I shan't make that mistake again.



No need. It is physically impossible for bacteria to think, given that they lack brains. You simply don't understand what the articles are talking about.



Stop using that word. You don't even know what it means.



I don't believe you. You said that already and didn't move on.

Now, do you want to actually move on? If so, address your errors.
Why do you continue to ignore the links I presented above that show that bacteria can perform cognitive sequences?

Are you blocked from observing links? Was the screenshot showing the evidence not visible to you?

Are you trolling?


For others here, Argumenon argued that bacteria can't think but in contrast, here is data once more, that contradicts Argumenon's nonsensical remark:

Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan
What benefit do you gain from ignoring your blunder above?

ProgrammingGodJordan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2017, 06:41 PM   #59
John Jones
Penultimate Amazing
 
John Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Iowa USA
Posts: 11,147
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
Conversation history:
[░░░]
Do you have position you wish to present?
__________________
Credibility is not a boomerang. If you throw it away, it's not coming back.
John Jones is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd July 2017, 06:44 PM   #60
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 66,187
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
Why do you continue to ignore the links I presented above that show that bacteria can perform cognitive sequences?
I didn't. I addressed it, remember?

Quote:
For others here, Argumenon argued that bacteria can't think but in contrast, here is data once more, that contradicts Argumenon's nonsensical remark:
Please write my name correctly.

Quote:
What benefit do you gain from ignoring your blunder above?
Just because I pointed out that you made an error doesn't mean you have to accuse me of doing the same over and over. That's what a child does.

Quote:
And yet you just can't seem to let it go.

You're ignoring the crux of my argument, which I've repeated several times now. But ignoring or cutting out parts of other people's arguments seems to be your modus operandi. I'll try again:

That other species or families manage fine without feature X does not negate the fact that feature X is a useful evolutionary feature to OUR species. Can you address this, at some point?
__________________
<Roar!>

Last edited by Argumemnon; 2nd July 2017 at 06:45 PM.
Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2017, 12:17 AM   #61
ProgrammingGodJordan
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,342
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
I didn't. I addressed it, remember?



Please write my name correctly.



Just because I pointed out that you made an error doesn't mean you have to accuse me of doing the same over and over. That's what a child does.



And yet you just can't seem to let it go.


I can show you a few scenarios online, where I had come to acknowledge any error made.

Likewise, if I had made an error here, I would have long acknowledged such; for such is how one may evolve. I have made no such error; I have nothing to gain by ignoring my invalidities.

You continued to ignore the factum that bateria can think, contrary to your invalid comment that they can't.



Originally Posted by argumemnon
You're ignoring the crux of my argument, which I've repeated several times now. But ignoring or cutting out parts of other people's arguments seems to be your modus operandi. I'll try again:
That other species or families manage fine without feature X does not negate the fact that feature X is a useful evolutionary feature to OUR species. Can you address this, at some point?
There is no scientific data showing that belief is essential, for continued species success'.

Contrarily, it is scientifically observable that belief opposes science, whence science is mankind's largely useful/prominent tool.

It is thusly silly to express that belief is a useful evolutionary tool for humans.

Last edited by ProgrammingGodJordan; 3rd July 2017 at 12:38 AM.
ProgrammingGodJordan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2017, 02:10 AM   #62
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 66,187
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
You continued to ignore the factum that bateria can think
I'm not ignoring it. I'm telling you that they cannot. Perhaps you should read that article again.

Quote:
There is no scientific data showing that belief is essential, for continued species success'.
I never said it was. Address the point I made, not some imaginary one.

Quote:
Contrarily, it is scientifically observable that belief opposes science, whence science is mankind's largely useful/prominent tool.
Again, this does not counter my argument. That X is better than Y doesn't mean Y isn't evolutionarily useful.

Quote:
It is thusly silly to express that belief is a useful evolutionary tool for humans.
That doesn't follow.

You are terrible at logic.
__________________
<Roar!>
Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2017, 02:47 AM   #63
fagin
Illuminator
 
fagin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: As far away from casebro as possible.
Posts: 4,388
I think it follows from his terrible attempts at trying to sound erudite in English.

Thusly it sounds silly and is filled with prior invalidities.

Seriously PGJ, real people don't talk like that.
__________________
There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda
fagin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2017, 03:20 AM   #64
Maartenn100
Illuminator
 
Maartenn100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 3,025
athe´sts are more close minded then religious people says scientific study

(ps: accept evidence please, especially when you do not like the results:-))
__________________
spacetime exists 'outthere'. It's all events together.
We, minds, experience moment by moment the unfolding of events. But that's not how the phenomena exist outthere. In spacetime all events already exist simultaniously. Only the interaction with a mind, establishes the experience of time
Maartenn100 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2017, 03:54 AM   #65
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 66,187
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
The Catholic University of Louvain, eh? I'm sure that study is totally not biased.
__________________
<Roar!>
Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2017, 04:28 AM   #66
fagin
Illuminator
 
fagin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: As far away from casebro as possible.
Posts: 4,388
To be fair, theists believe in magic. That's pretty open minded.
__________________
There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda
fagin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2017, 05:02 AM   #67
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 15,985
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
The Catholic University of Louvain, eh? I'm sure that study is totally not biased.
Read the guy's CV. He has a huge sex hang-up typical of catholics.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2017, 06:26 AM   #68
steenkh
Philosopher
 
steenkh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 5,091
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
Here is another article:

"MIT Physicist Proposes New 'Meaning of Life' "

http://bigthink.com/ideafeed/mit-phy...eaning-of-life
You are right: here they state unambiguously that Jeremy England operates with a concept of "the meaning of life". However, the article does not support this: Life is still only treated as a consequence of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, no actual meaning seems to be involved.
__________________
Steen

--
Jack of all trades - master of none!
steenkh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2017, 12:57 PM   #69
JesseCuster
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 643
The opening section of your book that's available to read for free on Amazon immediately makes me want to not buy your book.

First of all, the fact that the first thing your book says is that "no opinion, faith, emotion nor bias was utilized in the composition of this book. Thusly it doesn't contain any wishful thinking, but science instead" makes me immediately think that the book is full of woo. Maybe it's not full of woo and it's a paragon of revolutionary rational scientific thinking, but the fact that you feel the need to immediately declare your own opinion about your own book does not inspired me with confidence that these things are actually true.

Like probably most regulars on these forums, I've read a fair number of books on science, philosophy, history, etc. In all of the books I've read, the proof is in the pudding. If the book is unbiased, factually based, properly researched, well sourced, rationally sound, scientifically based, etc. then that will be apparent by actually reading the book. I don't need the author to tell me the book is unbiased, unopinionated, unemotional and scientific in order to determine if it is actually these things.

As a result, that opening declaration immediately sets off a red flag to me and I'm sure it will set off the same red flag to a lot of people who might otherwise might want to read the book.

On another note, the introduction is terribly written. I appreciate that it might not be the entire introduction because I'm only basing this opinion on what's freely available on the Amazon website, but to me it just reads like a disconnected set of sentences. Upon reading the introduction (or the section of the introduction that's available), I'm actually none the wiser about what the book is actually about. The introduction randomly rambles from vague references to artificial intelligence to the meaning of life to Christianity and biblical contradictions, with no obvious connection between these disparate subjects. As a result, I don't actually know what the book is actually going to be about. Is it going to discuss subjects ranging from Biblical contradictions to the meaning of life to artificial intelligence?

This may all sound rather harsh, but this is just the feeling I get from reading the short free sample available at Amazon.
JesseCuster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2017, 01:06 PM   #70
JesseCuster
Muse
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 643
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
I ponder....

Insects/bacteria/non-human animals don't appear to require belief to fulfill complex tasks (some doing tasks better than human, or human-relevant/useful tasks that human can't do at all), while complex human brains fancy believing?
The fact that bacteria don't require belief to do whatever it is they do, is no indication that belief is something that humans can or should do without.

Snakes can climb without having any fingers, but does that mean that fingers are superfluous to humans and that we should dispense with them and that we should be able to climb without them?

Note: This is not an argument in favour of or against belief, just pointing out that the fact that bacteria do their thing without having beliefs is a truly terrible argument that belief is something that humans can or should do without.
JesseCuster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2017, 07:55 PM   #71
ProgrammingGodJordan
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,342
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
I'm not ignoring it. I'm telling you that they cannot. Perhaps you should read that article again.
I had read them.

Both articles express that bacteria can think, but not in the same way as mammals. Doesn't remove the factum that they think, regardless.


Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
I never said it was. Address the point I made, not some imaginary one.

Again, this does not counter my argument. That X is better than Y doesn't mean Y isn't evolutionary useful.
That is nonbeliefism's point Argumemnon; why would one choose Y, given that X is better?

Last edited by ProgrammingGodJordan; 3rd July 2017 at 07:56 PM.
ProgrammingGodJordan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2017, 08:02 PM   #72
ProgrammingGodJordan
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,342
Originally Posted by JesseCuster View Post
The fact that bacteria don't require belief to do whatever it is they do, is no indication that belief is something that humans can or should do without.

Snakes can climb without having any fingers, but does that mean that fingers are superfluous to humans and that we should dispense with them and that we should be able to climb without them?

Note: This is not an argument in favour of or against belief, just pointing out that the fact that bacteria do their thing without having beliefs is a truly terrible argument that belief is something that humans can or should do without.



(PART A)

Regardless, there exist non-human animals, that are better at complex tasks, despite the fact that humans have many more neurons enabling higher thought cycles.

For example, humans with several more neurons than chimps, are far more likely to reject evidence; (there are chimps that can count, but there are theists that refuse to count properly; ie theists with much fervor, believe the earth is 6000 years old, contrary to evidence, they refuse to count properly.)


(PART B)

The original post had long expressed that beings use the sub-optimal mechanism of belief, instead of science; belief can allow a large degree of non-science/non-sense, where as scientific methodology allows not non-scientific methodology.

Last edited by ProgrammingGodJordan; 3rd July 2017 at 08:04 PM.
ProgrammingGodJordan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2017, 08:07 PM   #73
ProgrammingGodJordan
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,342
Originally Posted by JesseCuster View Post
The opening section of your book that's available to read for free on Amazon immediately makes me want to not buy your book.

First of all, the fact that the first thing your book says is that "no opinion, faith, emotion nor bias was utilized in the composition of this book. Thusly it doesn't contain any wishful thinking, but science instead" makes me immediately think that the book is full of woo. Maybe it's not full of woo and it's a paragon of revolutionary rational scientific thinking, but the fact that you feel the need to immediately declare your own opinion about your own book does not inspired me with confidence that these things are actually true.

Like probably most regulars on these forums, I've read a fair number of books on science, philosophy, history, etc. In all of the books I've read, the proof is in the pudding. If the book is unbiased, factually based, properly researched, well sourced, rationally sound, scientifically based, etc. then that will be apparent by actually reading the book. I don't need the author to tell me the book is unbiased, unopinionated, unemotional and scientific in order to determine if it is actually these things.

As a result, that opening declaration immediately sets off a red flag to me and I'm sure it will set off the same red flag to a lot of people who might otherwise might want to read the book.

On another note, the introduction is terribly written. I appreciate that it might not be the entire introduction because I'm only basing this opinion on what's freely available on the Amazon website, but to me it just reads like a disconnected set of sentences. Upon reading the introduction (or the section of the introduction that's available), I'm actually none the wiser about what the book is actually about. The introduction randomly rambles from vague references to artificial intelligence to the meaning of life to Christianity and biblical contradictions, with no obvious connection between these disparate subjects. As a result, I don't actually know what the book is actually going to be about. Is it going to discuss subjects ranging from Biblical contradictions to the meaning of life to artificial intelligence?

This may all sound rather harsh, but this is just the feeling I get from reading the short free sample available at Amazon.


If you don't fancy science, and instead prefer wishful thinking select another book.

Rather than declare opinion, I avoided such, as one tends to express nonsense/non-science, when one expresses opinion.


FOOTNOTE:
There are several valid sources included in the book, including source 1, and others.

By extension, biblical contradictions are a non-trivial portion of silly constructs believed by billions of humans..., that should be self-explanatory to some.

Last edited by ProgrammingGodJordan; 3rd July 2017 at 08:54 PM.
ProgrammingGodJordan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2017, 08:45 PM   #74
ProgrammingGodJordan
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,342
Originally Posted by Maartenn100 View Post
athe´sts are more close minded then religious people says scientific study

(ps: accept evidence please, especially when you do not like the results:-))
A study via Catholics...
Does this mean the study is as 'valid' as the bible?
Or rather, as invalid as the bible?
ProgrammingGodJordan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd July 2017, 08:58 PM   #75
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 22,242
PGJ, what about axioms?

This signature is intended to irradiate people.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2017, 12:15 AM   #76
ProgrammingGodJordan
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,342
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
PGJ, what about axioms?

This signature is intended to irradiate people.
Why believe in axioms that hold true/work experimentally, whether or not one believes in them?

Did you miss the original post?
ProgrammingGodJordan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2017, 02:10 AM   #77
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 66,187
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
I had read them.

Both articles express that bacteria can think, but not in the same way as mammals. Doesn't remove the factum that they think, regardless.
No, that's not what the article said. Your ability to understand simple concepts is under question.

Quote:
That is nonbeliefism's point Argumemnon; why would one choose Y, given that X is better?
"Choose"? We're talking about evolution, here. There's no choice there.

And why are you writing in such a weird style?
__________________
<Roar!>
Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2017, 05:26 AM   #78
ProgrammingGodJordan
Suspended
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 1,342
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
No, that's not what the article said. Your ability to understand simple concepts is under question.
Article:

" It's not thinking in the way humans, dogs or even birds think, but new findings from researchers at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, show that bacteria are more capable of complex decision-making than previously known."

Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
"Choose"? We're talking about evolution, here. There's no choice there.


And why are you writing in such a weird style?

Evolution gave rise to our ability to wield guns, to commit murder.
There is however a choice; one can choose not to do the above.

Likewise, one can choose not to employ belief.

Last edited by ProgrammingGodJordan; 4th July 2017 at 05:38 AM.
ProgrammingGodJordan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2017, 05:29 AM   #79
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 66,187
Originally Posted by ProgrammingGodJordan View Post
Article:

" It's not thinking in the way humans, dogs or even birds think, but new findings from researchers at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, show that bacteria are more capable of complex decision-making than previously known."
Cherry picking won't help your case, Jordan. Individual bacterium do not think.

Quote:
Evolution gave rise to our ability to wield guns, to commit murder.
There is however a choice, one can choose not to do the above.
That has absolutely nothing to do with the existence of belief as an evolutionary trait.

It seems like you simply don't understand the first thing about what's needed to follow this sort of discussion.

Quote:
Likewise, one can choose not to employ belief.
That's like saying you have a choice to find pastry tasty.
__________________
<Roar!>
Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th July 2017, 05:31 AM   #80
fagin
Illuminator
 
fagin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: As far away from casebro as possible.
Posts: 4,388
To be fair, bacteria can probably think more clearly than at least one of the posters on this forum.
__________________
There is no secret ingredient - Kung Fu Panda
fagin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:15 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
ę 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.