In my post at
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10718395,
all I do is talk about science. I don't mention religion at all. Yet, all your responses following that post up to this one, talk about religion. Is science such a religion to all of you, that if someone comes along with science that doesn't limit itself to the way you religiously look at science, then he is really talking religion rather than science?
The point is becoming clearer. You simply aren't interested in the truth. All along I thought you people were scientifically minded people. Now it turns out that you are religiously minded people, and you have your own, little brand of science that is your religion.
How interesting you are. You are not interested in the truth. You are not interested in real science. All you are interested in is your brand of thinking that looks like science, but really isn't. You kids really have a weird religion.
EDIT: The post by the joint, directly above this post, isn't included in my little rant in this post.
Poorly. You talk about Science poorly. I've called you out on this so many times now it's insane. You make the most ridiculous claims which are simply untrue. For example, you've continuously called Science a religion. It's not. Words have definitions specifically so that people can communicate. When you start inventing definitions on the fly, your statements become entirely meaningless.
People need to be able to understand your ideas, but you make it impossible because you're inventing definitions. The result is that you are probably the only person in the entire world who holds those definitions, and so when you make a claim about something, you will also probably be the only person in the entire world who even understands your claim.
If you want to make your own definitions and live in your own little language world, go right ahead, but just remember that, to people who use the same definitions everyone else uses, your claims are incommunicable and therefore unsound.
Edit: And thanks lol
There are all kinds of people who, if you used the strict scientific method with them, they wouldn't have a clue as to what you were talking about. This is because the term "science" has taken on new meaning among the masses. People even call their electric range in their kitchen, science.
In my post at
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10718395, what definitions have I invented? That's why I have the dictionary definitions listed... just to show that the definitions are not mine. However, that isn't what you are posting against me about. What you are really posting against me about is the fact that you can actually use the sientific method in the link I listed to prove God. And, I explain it so that an average, non-scientific type of person, can understand it as well.
I may not have used terminology exactly the same way that a pure scientist would for explaining some science project wherein he used strict scientific method speech. But if I or you did such, the people would really be all mixed up. I am speaking their language.
Note: I would appreciate a thoughtful response. I went through the trouble to cite and reference specific examples to help you understand, which took a bit of time. The only reason I did it is that, on a few rare occasions, you have demonstrated some capacity for intellectual open-mindedness. The result of that open-mindedness was a few decent posts of yours that were made decent simply because you were asking more questions instead of continuing to make ridiculous, nonsensical arguments, and being ignorantly proud of how right you think they were/are.
1) Science has "not" taken on new meaning among the masses. Among the stupid, maybe. Among the educated, no.
2) That's pretty amazing that you think you can use the Scientific Method to prove God, because it's a
logical impossibility. This is the proof in the pudding that you have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to Science. Science is an
inductive method of knowledge acquisition. By definition, no inductive method has or could ever have the capacity to conclude about something so Universal.
Any single time that you have ever said there is physical evidence and proof for God, you are necessarily wrong 100% of the time. This can't be debated, it's a logical rule. Sorry, try again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction3) You are in no way speaking the language of a scientist, because point #2 demonstrates you don't even understand how data turns into theory. And, the reality is backwards of what you stated. People are "all mixed up" precisely because you
aren't speaking
anyone's language. You toss out words that everybody else already knows and can understand just fine. You take those words, butcher them to death, extract some weird meaning that not only makes it impossible for anyone else to understand what you're saying, but renders your ideas completing meaningless to everyone else except you.
Stop pretending you know anything about Science. You don't, and that's because you don't know the real definition of it, and therefore you can't distinguish between what is scientific and what isn't.
Edit: Oh, about that link you posted. Yeah, I saw that. Good job for referencing definitions for consensus. I mean that, because that's something you should do....
...but then you went ahead and said something along the lines of, "Oh look! The data I have fits definition #1!" And definition #1 of "proof" was: "1. evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth."
And in no way did your data actually constitute proof of anything according to definition #1. The so-called "evidence" that you think proves God is so insufficient that it could never say anything about God one way or the other.
That's where an understanding of logic and sound inference comes into play, but you don't have that. There is not a single shred of physical evidence for God's existence, and that's because it's theoretically impossible for there to ever be any.
I pretty much disagree with what you are saying here, because pretty much all you are doing is saying that you disagree with what I am saying.
Dude, this isn't just a matter of disagreement. There is no opinion here. I "disagree" with what you are saying in the same way I would "disagree" if you said that 2+2=5.
2+2=4 because of the rules of math. If you say 2+2=5, I would disagree because you are provably wrong.
The same applies when you say "I have proof or evidence of God!" I disagree not because it's some mere opinion, but because it is simply a logical impossibility. Drawing conclusions from a set of evidence is an inductive process, and it is absolutely impossible for you to arrive at a definitive conclusion for God in this manner.
Now, maybe in your head you can come up with some weird set of rules which might lead you to conclude that 2+2=5. But, those are your rules, not the rules of actual mathematics. It's completely meaningless to everyone else if they don't know what your weird rules are.
Similarly, when you start making up terms and definitions for words like "science" or "logical" or "proof," your arguments become completely meaningless and invalid in the same way that 2+2=5 is invalid.
You might wonder why I think you're making up terms and definitions for words like "science," "logical," and proof." Great, because I'll tell you.
1) You have made up many definitions for "Science," which is evident in previous posts when you state things like:
a·the·ism
ˈāTHēˌizəm/Submit
noun
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
synonyms: nonbelief, disbelief, unbelief, irreligion, skepticism, doubt, agnosticism; nihilism
"atheism was not freely discussed in his community"
You see the emboldened phrases? This is why you are a terrible, and I mean TERRIBLE, debater. You changed the definition of atheism into something that is 100% the inverse of the actual definition. That is, "irreligion" is completely inverse to your claim that "atheism is a religion."
Accordingly, there is no debate necessary. Your arguments are provably stupid right off the bat, and you have no idea what the hell you're talking about.
you. And if you were a woman, I would.