Page 10 of 19 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 182

Thread: Maybe it would be good for science to make up new words to describe laws, etc

  1. Top | #91
    Contributor skepticalbip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Searching for reality along the long and winding road
    Posts
    5,243
    Archived
    12,976
    Total Posts
    18,219
    Rep Power
    64
    Quote Originally Posted by Half-Life View Post
    Let's ask about sources. Atheists always say, "Christian sources are biased!" But, what do you guys expect? Do you really expect an ATHEIST SOURCE to give us evidence of the Bible and Jesus? Every time we bring up sources you guys yell "biased!" So, do you think left-wing sources are unbiased? Aren't they just as biased toward your side?

    How do you find a true objective non-biased source?
    I haven't seen that, "Atheists always say, 'Christian sources are biased!'". What I see is questions such as, "what conformation is there for that?"

    How is objective evidence found? By finding independent sources and/or archeological finds that tell the same story. For instance if we only had a story by a Macedonian historian that Alexander conquered Egypt then little credence would be given to it. But we not only have that claim but the story repeated by Egyptian scribes that describe being conquered by Alexander. Other than that, we have Egyptian records of Alexander having them build the city of Alexandria, ruins found, and Alexander's general, Ptolemy, left to rule Egypt as a Macedonian Pharaoh while Alexander moved on to expand his empire.

    Another example is we had the Iliad that told of a Greek siege of the city of Troy... no credence was given to it until the ruins of Troy were uncovered and archeological evidence of a siege of that city by Greeks at the correct time period was found.

    We also have stories of the destruction of a great city of Atlantis but that is all that we have so it is considered to be myth.

    Much of what Christians want to offer as evidence is an unknown author's claims decades after the supposed event from a few thousand kilometers away.

  2. Top | #92
    Elder Contributor Keith&Co.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Far Western Mass
    Posts
    17,472
    Archived
    24,500
    Total Posts
    41,972
    Rep Power
    77
    Quote Originally Posted by Half-Life View Post
    Let's ask about sources. Atheists always say, "Christian sources are biased!" But, what do you guys expect?
    I for one expect that you're going to quote the bible as evidence for the bible. That is what i see the most of.
    Or, Lumpy's practice of making claims he has absolutely no support for.
    But, hey, if you have objective evidence of a biblical claim, you a re welcome to pony up.
    Who knows, it might even stand up to scrutiny.
    Do you really expect an ATHEIST SOURCE to give us evidence of the Bible and Jesus? Every time we bring up sources you guys yell "biased!"
    No, no we don't scream 'bias' just because a Christain brings it up. But if it's a PRATT, it won't take us long to evaluate it.
    To see if you really have a source or if it's a presuppositionist claim made for the 1001st time.
    So, do you think left-wing sources are unbiased? Aren't they just as biased toward your side?
    Then you should be able to identify the bias, right?
    You are welcome to point out errors in our arguments. Really. We want to find the truth. YOU guys tend to want to find YOUR truth, thus we see things like Statements of Faith where a researcher promises that no matter what he discovers, he won't publish any findings that argue with a literal interpretation of Genesis.

    Do you know of any Atheist such statenents? Where one cannot get funding, or submit work for publishing unless it tallies with a godless universe?
    How do you find a true objective non-biased source?
    Peer review. If you argument or evidence has any weakness, it's like chumming the water, and the sharks start circling....

  3. Top | #93
    Fair dinkum thinkum bilby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
    Posts
    22,028
    Archived
    10,477
    Total Posts
    32,505
    Rep Power
    85
    Quote Originally Posted by Half-Life View Post
    Let's ask about sources. Atheists always say, "Christian sources are biased!" But, what do you guys expect? Do you really expect an ATHEIST SOURCE to give us evidence of the Bible and Jesus? Every time we bring up sources you guys yell "biased!" So, do you think left-wing sources are unbiased? Aren't they just as biased toward your side?

    How do you find a true objective non-biased source?
    There's an entire branch of philosophy, called 'epistemology', that deals with this fundamental question.

    That you are completely ignorant of its very existence is totally unsuprising.

    That you assume that the answer must be sufficiently simple to be easily summarised in a forum post is also no surprise.

    Reality isn't simple. Epistemology is well worth studying - it's not easy or necessarily quick, but it is fundamental. As you so ineloquently point out, if you don't know how you know things, then you don't really know anything at all.

    Hasn't it occurred to you that you might be wrong? If you don't know how other people come to understand which statements are right, which are wrong, and how to determine the difference, then how can you expect to be able to do so yourself?

    Mere confidence is a poor guide to correctness. Trusting people on the basis of how confident they appear is a dreadful epistemology. But it's one that is very common amongst non-thinkers. Indeed, the entire business model of Fox News, and of the modern Republican Party depends upon it.

  4. Top | #94
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    U.S.A.
    Posts
    2,687
    Archived
    1,250
    Total Posts
    3,937
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by bilby View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Half-Life View Post
    Let's ask about sources. Atheists always say, "Christian sources are biased!" But, what do you guys expect? Do you really expect an ATHEIST SOURCE to give us evidence of the Bible and Jesus? Every time we bring up sources you guys yell "biased!" So, do you think left-wing sources are unbiased? Aren't they just as biased toward your side?

    How do you find a true objective non-biased source?
    There's an entire branch of philosophy, called 'epistemology', that deals with this fundamental question.

    That you are completely ignorant of its very existence is totally unsuprising.

    That you assume that the answer must be sufficiently simple to be easily summarised in a forum post is also no surprise.

    Reality isn't simple. Epistemology is well worth studying - it's not easy or necessarily quick, but it is fundamental. As you so ineloquently point out, if you don't know how you know things, then you don't really know anything at all.

    Hasn't it occurred to you that you might be wrong? If you don't know how other people come to understand which statements are right, which are wrong, and how to determine the difference, then how can you expect to be able to do so yourself?

    Mere confidence is a poor guide to correctness. Trusting people on the basis of how confident they appear is a dreadful epistemology. But it's one that is very common amongst non-thinkers. Indeed, the entire business model of Fox News, and of the modern Republican Party depends upon it.
    Because a lot of sources are biased to the left. The left pushes diversity so of course all academic studies are pressured into only publishing things that AGREE with diversity. The stuff that disagrees with it, like race and IQ studies, get thrown out, not because they are wrong, but because they disagree with the diversity agenda. If that isn't biased, I don't know what is. There was a college that was going to do a race and IQ lecture and students were boycotting it. Why? Because it disagreed with their feelings. They couldn't even LISTEN to the lecture. They had to stomp it out like a fire because they are too scared of their feelings being hurt. They only agree with facts that agree with their feelings.

    Also a lot of people seem to think "rational wiki" is a great source. But why? Because it says "rational" in the title? Is that all it takes for NPC's to agree on a source?

  5. Top | #95
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    U.S.A.
    Posts
    2,687
    Archived
    1,250
    Total Posts
    3,937
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Keith&Co. View Post
    I for one expect that you're going to quote the bible as evidence for the bible. That is what i see the most of.
    Or, Lumpy's practice of making claims he has absolutely no support for.
    But, hey, if you have objective evidence of a biblical claim, you a re welcome to pony up.
    Who knows, it might even stand up to scrutiny. No, no we don't scream 'bias' just because a Christain brings it up. But if it's a PRATT, it won't take us long to evaluate it.
    To see if you really have a source or if it's a presuppositionist claim made for the 1001st time.
    So, do you think left-wing sources are unbiased? Aren't they just as biased toward your side?
    Then you should be able to identify the bias, right?
    You are welcome to point out errors in our arguments. Really. We want to find the truth. YOU guys tend to want to find YOUR truth, thus we see things like Statements of Faith where a researcher promises that no matter what he discovers, he won't publish any findings that argue with a literal interpretation of Genesis.

    Do you know of any Atheist such statenents? Where one cannot get funding, or submit work for publishing unless it tallies with a godless universe?
    How do you find a true objective non-biased source?
    Peer review. If you argument or evidence has any weakness, it's like chumming the water, and the sharks start circling....
    I can't tell you how many times over the years I was linked to ATHEIST WEBSITES as evidence of ATHEISM. How is that unbiased? I show you Christian sites that say Christianity is true. You laugh and say "bias!" So, why can't you do the same for atheist websites?

  6. Top | #96
    Fair dinkum thinkum bilby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
    Posts
    22,028
    Archived
    10,477
    Total Posts
    32,505
    Rep Power
    85
    Quote Originally Posted by Half-Life View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by bilby View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Half-Life View Post
    Let's ask about sources. Atheists always say, "Christian sources are biased!" But, what do you guys expect? Do you really expect an ATHEIST SOURCE to give us evidence of the Bible and Jesus? Every time we bring up sources you guys yell "biased!" So, do you think left-wing sources are unbiased? Aren't they just as biased toward your side?

    How do you find a true objective non-biased source?
    There's an entire branch of philosophy, called 'epistemology', that deals with this fundamental question.

    That you are completely ignorant of its very existence is totally unsuprising.

    That you assume that the answer must be sufficiently simple to be easily summarised in a forum post is also no surprise.

    Reality isn't simple. Epistemology is well worth studying - it's not easy or necessarily quick, but it is fundamental. As you so ineloquently point out, if you don't know how you know things, then you don't really know anything at all.

    Hasn't it occurred to you that you might be wrong? If you don't know how other people come to understand which statements are right, which are wrong, and how to determine the difference, then how can you expect to be able to do so yourself?

    Mere confidence is a poor guide to correctness. Trusting people on the basis of how confident they appear is a dreadful epistemology. But it's one that is very common amongst non-thinkers. Indeed, the entire business model of Fox News, and of the modern Republican Party depends upon it.
    Because a lot of sources are biased to the left. The left pushes diversity so of course all academic studies are pressured into only publishing things that AGREE with diversity. The stuff that disagrees with it, like race and IQ studies, get thrown out, not because they are wrong, but because they disagree with the diversity agenda. If that isn't biased, I don't know what is. There was a college that was going to do a race and IQ lecture and students were boycotting it. Why? Because it disagreed with their feelings. They couldn't even LISTEN to the lecture. They had to stomp it out like a fire because they are too scared of their feelings being hurt. They only agree with facts that agree with their feelings.

    Also a lot of people seem to think "rational wiki" is a great source. But why? Because it says "rational" in the title? Is that all it takes for NPC's to agree on a source?
    I refer you back to the post to which this is supposedly a response.

    Did you even read what I wrote? Because your response seems to have fuck-all relationship to my post.

    I only asked two questions in my post:
    a) "Hasn't it occurred to you that you might be wrong?" and
    b) "If you don't know how other people come to understand which statements are right, which are wrong, and how to determine the difference, then how can you expect to be able to do so yourself?"

    "Because a lot of sources are biased to the left" isn't a coherent answer to either question, and leaves me wondering what question you think I asked or implied, or you think I should have asked or implied, for which that response is coherent.

    If you can't or won't read and respond coherently to other people's posts, then perhaps discussion boards are too advanced a medium for you.

  7. Top | #97
    Elder Contributor Keith&Co.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Far Western Mass
    Posts
    17,472
    Archived
    24,500
    Total Posts
    41,972
    Rep Power
    77
    Quote Originally Posted by Half-Life View Post
    I can't tell you how many times over the years I was linked to ATHEIST WEBSITES as evidence of ATHEISM. How is that unbiased?
    I would have to kniw tye full context. Because you are almost pathologically unable to predict, or explain, the behavior of smart people.
    I suspect you asked a question and the answer was pretty well explained on someone's site.
    OR you asked a biology question and were linked to an evolution site and interpreted it as atheistic because that fits your limited understanding.

    But i just really doubt that anyone used ATHEISM as evidence for ATHEISM. Doesn't make sense, does it?
    "I don't believe in gods."
    "Realky? Why not?"
    "Because of Atheism!"
    So, well, citation needed.
    I show you Christian sites that say Christianity is true. You laugh and say "bias!"
    Can you point to where this exact exchange has taken place on this forum? Because i think you're talking shit.
    Because if you post to a site thst just says Xianity is true, we're going to ask for some supporting evidence for their statement
    So, why can't you do the same for atheist websites?
    i don't often get linked to atheist sites when i ask for someone's reason they are atheist. Far more likely, i get linked to a Christain site.

  8. Top | #98
    Elder Contributor Keith&Co.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Far Western Mass
    Posts
    17,472
    Archived
    24,500
    Total Posts
    41,972
    Rep Power
    77
    Quote Originally Posted by Half-Life View Post
    I can't tell you how many times over the years I was linked to ATHEIST WEBSITES as evidence of ATHEISM. How is that unbiased? I show you Christian sites that say Christianity is true. You laugh and say "bias!" So, why can't you do the same for atheist websites?
    Hey, so when you suggested that the bible supported a nti-gay bigotry, Halfie, did FUCKING ANYONE 'scream' Bias!
    Or did we ask you to support your claim?
    The claim you still haven't supported? Never once finding that verse where Jesus used 'homosexual' and 'sin' in connection to each other?
    I will stipulate laughing, but only at your utter failure, not your claim.

  9. Top | #99
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Between two cities
    Posts
    2,287
    Archived
    56
    Total Posts
    2,343
    Rep Power
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by Half-Life View Post
    Let's ask about sources. Atheists always say, "Christian sources are biased!" But, what do you guys expect? Do you really expect an ATHEIST SOURCE to give us evidence of the Bible and Jesus? Every time we bring up sources you guys yell "biased!" So, do you think left-wing sources are unbiased? Aren't they just as biased toward your side?

    How do you find a true objective non-biased source?

    Sholars / historians who are also believers don't seem to be taken seriously as the non-believer versions for some reason (anyone can be biased). We know they (theists) have the ability and credentials, for example; Bart Erhman was trained by a Theist!
    Last edited by Learner; 07-22-2019 at 12:25 PM.

  10. Top | #100
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Between two cities
    Posts
    2,287
    Archived
    56
    Total Posts
    2,343
    Rep Power
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by steve_bank View Post
    The bible is in my opinion:

    1 A creation myth, not unique. Many traditions have one. They generaly make the group appear unique and special.
    2 A genealogy
    3 A set of mythical stories of supernatural powers. The Ark as a weapon. Blowing down walls wit a her'mnMoses and the exodus.
    4 An embellished history of glory of a minor group in the region who were repeatedly conquered and assimilated.
    5 The NT accounts in the gospels also embellished. Tailored to make Jesus fit the old prophesies.
    FIFY

    The bible is not in my opinion:

    1. An accurate historical account
    2 Science in any way, shape, or form. It is supernatural.
    3 While there are some historical correlations of Hebrew events, it is not a corroboration of supernatural events. Moses parting the water.

    I do not see anything new to discover.

    1 An ancient tribe claimed to be the chosen few of a god. Not really unique in history.
    2 A set of moral and civil laws and rituals. Not unique either.
    3 Accounts of glory and battles. Nor t unique.
    4 Monotheism. Not unique.
    Not unique but the origin ? Who do see came first with the idea of montheism? Who plagiarised who? Even theists know the (similar) concept is not unique.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •