SirMethos's forum posts

#1 Edited by SirMethos (1269 posts) - - Show Bio

@dshipp17:

There are a few errors in your last reply to me, that I decided to correct before anything else. As usual, I put your comment in Italics and quotation marks, and my own reply underneath it.

"I had to reexamine science through the lens that I had been programmed to presupposed things that were not actually established fact like say E=mc^2, F=ma, the periodic table, etc."

E=mc^2, F=MA, the periodic table, and tons of other similar equations are actually well established facts, that have been tested, and re-tested, and tested over again. Each of them have had thousands of scientists trying to falsify them, and neither of them have failed a single test they have been put through.

Newton's laws of Motion, of which "F=MA" is one, are some of the most well-established scientific theories.

If you can actually falsify any of them, then there is a Nobel prize waiting for you.

"evolution is the probably actually the most refuted theory in science and is far from established"

Blatantly false. Evolution is actually one of the most well-established theories in modern science.

Not only has it been observed, it has also passed every single test it has been put to, to date. And this despite religious people having been trying to falsify it, pretty much since the day Darwin published it(if not before).

-----

"Again, do this for me first, tell me how, when, and where the Static State Theory of the Universe was a tested theory that had undergo the rigors of the scientific process and became the accepted law/theory in the scientific community? Assume I could be talking about either theory."

Well, the last one was when Fred Hoyle and a few other scientists(I forget their names) took the idea of a Static/Steady State universe up again in the late 1940's(that's the "when"), this was, if I remember correctly, in Cambridge(that's the "where"). They way it was tested, like most other similar theories, was for predictions about the cosmos to be made, based on the theory. Then, they observed the facts, to find out if the predictions of the theory were true(which they were). I believe that was a relatively simple explanation of the "how".

It wasn't completely refuted until the discovery of Microwave background radiation, in the mid-60's. The Microwave background radiation had already been predicted by the big bang theory though.

#2 Posted by SirMethos (1269 posts) - - Show Bio

@dshipp17:

"Do this for me first, tell me how, when, and where the Static State Theory of the Universe was a tested theory that had undergo the rigors of the scientific process and became the accepted law/theory in the scientific community?"

Ok, I'll bite for now, to a certain point at least.

In order to tell you that, we first have to determine exactly which Static State theory we're talking about. Are we talking the first Static State theory, or are we talking about the last one, that was pushed aside by the Big Bang theory as the generally accepted theory by the scientific community in general?

The first actual Static State theory of the Universe was authored by Isaac Newton in around 1687(I don't recall the exact date off the top of my head), and was called the Static Newtonian theory.

After Newton's theory, there has been between 4-9 major Static State theories(Albert Einstein's being one of the more prominent).

The original Big Bang, or rather Expanding Universe theory, was proposed by Alexander Friedmann in 1922, and the term "Big Bang" was officially used in 1950.

"Again, you're getting close, but I need you to point out at least one piece of evidence that Christian scientists rely on as proof of God that does not survive scientific scrutiny, or pseudo evidence, as you prefer it; please be specific about what you mean, not some generalized example that uses one or more of the laws of Thermodynamics."

First of all, I'm not the one with the burden of proof, as I've already pointed out.

However, since you seem to have answered my question in some of your later comments to others, and as I said above, I'll bite for now.

One piece of so-called "evidence" that christians claim supports the existence of god, is the Atomic Clock.

To explain this so-called evidence:

The atomic clock was build by scientists in 1967, which uses Cesium 133 atoms, because they vibrate at a constant rate of 9,192,631 times per second, which means that the clock will be accurate to within a second over a period of 30 million years. The claim is, that the fact that the Cesium 133 atoms vibrate at such a constant rate, cannot be accidental, and that this is thus proof of design. I.e. god.

To claim that this is "proof" of god's existence, is not just asinine, it shows a complete lack of understanding about science, and the scientific method.

In the so-called "evidence", the christians make 2 unsubstantiated claims:

1. That the constant rate of vibration cannot be accidental.

and 2. If the constant rate is not accidental, then it must be caused by the christian/abrahamic god.

Thus, this is not evidence of anything, let alone the existence of a specific god.

-------

Now that I have answered 2 of your questions, you can do the same.

1. Do you believe in creationism, or accept that evolution is a fact?

2. Can you name a single website, that has proof of god's existence?

That said, if you fail to answer, I'll have to assume that you have no proof.

#3 Posted by SirMethos (1269 posts) - - Show Bio

@dshipp17:

As before, your statements are in Italic and quotation marks, with my responses below them.

"I'll answer this the same way that I answered another poster, either you're unaware of the proof of God that Christians have or you're in denial over the proof that's been offered"

Quite the contrary, I have watched countless debates between atheists and christians, and spent countless hours trawling through websites, books, youtube videos, etc. with various claims from christians(and other religions), and to this date, there has not been offered a single piece of conclusive evidence.

If someone actually offers me a piece of conclusive evidence of the existence of god, then I'll be the first to change my mind, and start believing in his existence.

If you think you can provide that evidence, then I urge you to, not just show it to me and be the one to change my mind, but to show it to the scientific community in general, it would get you a Nobel prize, and be one of the greatest scientific discoveries of the century, if not the millennium.

"actually, quite a few Christians have presented evidence of God's existence and there are volumes of scientific literature and websites devoted to the topic"

Well, this is partially true. Quite a few christians have attempted to present evidence, but no one has actually provided any conclusive evidence to date.

Also, if there are so many websites, and so many volumes of scientific literature that provides this evidence, then why haven't you named even a single one?

"I can tell from your statements that you have a bias against Christians, while believing that you've fooled someone into thinking that your position is objective."

Again, partially true. I openly admit that I have a bias against christianity, not particularly against christians(there is a difference). That does not, however, mean that I am incapable of setting my bias aside.

"the burden of proof is on the atheists"

Not true. As you should know, if you are actually a "trained scientist" as you claim to be, the burden of proof falls on the person/people making the positive claim. In this case, that would be the religious people, who are making the positive claim that a god exists.

The atheistic position is one of disbelief. The position that, there is no evidence to conclusively prove that god exists, thus I don't believe.

From your statement though, I will hazard a guess and say that you believe in Magic. After all, it is impossible to disprove the existence of magic, so by your logic, it exists.

"while the concept of a proof in God has been around for millennia now, assertions that there is no God is fairly/relatively recent;"

I suppose that depends on your definition of "recent". But considering that it goes as far back as ancient Greece, at least, I assume you are using a far broader definition of the word than I do.

"in science, you examine what you believe to be flaws in a principle, you develop a hypothesis, you test it, than you present a new theory that completely shatters the concept of an existing God;"

In science, you start by getting an idea. This can happen by seeing flaws in existing principles, but doesn't necessarily have to come that way. Then you develop a hypothesis. Once you have that, you test it, by trying to falsify it. If it passes your tests, then you make it public, at which point, other scientists will put it through their own tests, each trying to falsify your hypothesis. If it passes every single test, it then become publicly accepted. And you have an actual Theory.

"to be taken seriously by everyone, the scientists who postulated the Big Bang Theory over the Static State Theory of the Universe presented their evidence for the rigors of scientific scrutiny; the supporters of Static State did not have to prove that Static State was still good law in response to a single assertion that the Universe had a beginning without more"

I like how you're twisting the facts.

Once again, partially true. Yes, to be taken seriously, the scientists who postulate the Big Bang theory, presented it to the scientific community, who put it through rigorous testing.

The testing of the new theory also worked for the supporters of the old theory, because of the Big Bang theory had not passed the tests, then it would have meant that the Static State theory was still valid. In proving the new theory, they automatically falsified the old one.

"that's the same with the existence of God and this part of the scientific method does not have to be made into an exception for this topic alone. Basically, Christians presented allegations for God's existence in response to atheists assertions to the contrary"

Again, nice twisting of the facts.

The problem with your statement here, is that the hypothesis of god's existence, has never passed the scientific rigorous testing in the first place. It is not an accepted Theory, or even Hypothesis. All it is, at this point, is a baseless claim that has not been back up by conclusive evidence.

" there's no need for the Christians' allegations to be put through scientific rigors"

Actually, there is every reason for the allegations of the christians to be put through scientific rigors. First and foremost, the fact that they have never passed the scientific rigors in the first place.

But you are absolutely correct in referring to them as "allegations", because at this point, that is all they are.

"a belief in God is the current Newtonian Mechanics or Static State theory of reality"

No, it really isn't. That would mean that the belief in god has passed scientific rigors in the first place, and it never has.

"we're waiting with bated breath for atheists to present something that would completely shatter our faith in the existence of God, where faith is required to fill in the blanks."

Yea, and you're waiting because 1. You can't prove your own position(despite claims to the contrary). and 2. You have twisted the atheistic position, and try to make it seem like something it isn't.

The atheistic position is not: I believe god does not exist.

It is: I do not believe that god exists.

The burden of proof falls on the person making the positive claim. In this case, that is religion, who is making the positive claim that "god exists". Not the atheists, who simply disbelieve the religious claim.

-------------

Here is a question for you, in order for me to find out which of the many pieces of so-called "evidence" you seemingly believe in:

Do you believe in creationism, or do you accept evolution as a fact?

The so-called "evidence" that I have seen, vary greatly. From things like the atomic clock, to the laws of thermo-dynamics, to the human body(neither of the above, are proof of any god, let alone a specific one). Thus, I would like to find out the "level" of your belief, so that I can ascertain which "evidence" I have to refute.

Though I would hazard a guess and say that you're a "god of the gaps" kind of person.

#4 Posted by SirMethos (1269 posts) - - Show Bio

@dshipp17: Since you seem to have missed, or ignored, by part of my last post that was addressed to you, I'll post it here again.

The parts in Italic are the quoted parts of your post that I'm addressing.

"Christians have some proof for God's existence."

And yet, not a single christian has actually provided any evidence to support their claim of god's existence, in any of the countless debates that have taken place.

"Atheist have no proof that there is no God and even scientist on their side admit to that fact."

This is true, but Atheists don't have to provide proof that there is no god. The theists are the ones making the positive claim, thus the burden of proof is on them. And they have yet to provide a single piece of solid evidence.

"Atheists have been challenged by Christians but never show up for the debates"

Just like several christians have been challenged, but never shown up, or outright denied the challenges. It just happens more often with christians, than the other way around.

"atheists even have a $10,000 reward available to demonstrate that there is no God"

Yes, atheists also have a, iirc, 100 thousand dollar reward, for conclusive evidence of anything supernatural. A reward that has been on the table for more than 15 years, and has never been claimed.

"although atheists can desire to challenge our evidence that there is a God, with little success I might add, atheists have yet to present evidence that there can be absolutely no God or there's absolutely no evidence of God"

Atheists don't have to prove that there is no God, they don't make that claim in the first place. On the other hand, despite more than a hundred years of trying, christians have not provided a single piece of conclusive evidence to support their claim that god exists.

"But, please, just lay out how what I said lacks logic and lets debate; sometimes, I'll provide my references. I'm actually a trained scientist who happens to be Christian."

A trained scientist that, based on your comments, apparently doesn't understand the burden of proof, or the scientific method.

I don't suppose you got your scientific "training" at something like the Liberty University(and I use the word university, in the loosest possible way)?

#5 Edited by SirMethos (1269 posts) - - Show Bio

Team 2, easily.

#6 Posted by SirMethos (1269 posts) - - Show Bio

Asking for Atheists to provide evidence that god does not exist, is like asking for evidence that Santa Clause does not exist, and when no evidence is provided, saying "Aha! See! he does exist!".

That there is no evidence to show that something does not exist, does not prove that it does exist.

None of you can prove that I don't have a pet baby dragon in my backyard, and yet no rational human being would believe that I have it, if I don't prove it(just to clarify for the slow readers, I'm not claiming to have a pet dragon, baby or otherwise. it's just an example)..

#7 Edited by SirMethos (1269 posts) - - Show Bio

@jmarshmallow:

And the ODSTs that were taken down by the MC, featured in this game?

As far as I know, they didn't. Which simply makes them the Halo equivalent of nameless high-end mooks.

#8 Edited by SirMethos (1269 posts) - - Show Bio

Lol, this thread is so filled with ignorance that it's both sad, and hilarious.

@tazzmission:

1. Atheism and Agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. Theism/Atheism has to do with belief(theists believe in the existence of a god, atheists don't), while Gnosticism/Agnosticism has to do with knowledge(gnostics will claim that they know/are sure that a god exists, while agnostics will say that they are unsure).

You can have an agnostic Theist, someone who acknowledges that they are not sure whether a god exists or not, but believes that he does.

An agnostic atheist, someone who is not sure whether a god exists or not, but does not believe he does.

A Gnostic Theist, someone who not only believes in the existence of a god, but is sure about it.

A Gnostic Atheist, someone who not only not believes that a god exists, but is sure that he doesn't.

@rd189: The reason that most american atheists primarily focus on christianity, is because that is what they are primarily exposed to on a daily basis.

However, if you actually knew the least bit of what you're talking about, you would know that plenty of atheists, even most of the well-known ones, speak out against Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. just as they speak out against christianity.

Sam Harris, for example, is known for being particularly aggressive towards Islam, calling it the biggest threat to modern society.

@tazzmission: The reason that a lot of atheist actively speak out against religion, is that they honestly think that religion is detrimental to our society.

For example, the conservative party in texas, as part of their charter, wants to have Critical Thinking removed from public schools, this is due to(according to statements from a, iirc, texan senator) the children learning critical thinking, leading them away from christianity. In the long run, if they managed to get that through, it would result in a technological backslide, which would most definitely be detrimental to our society.

Another example would be the Pope condemning the distribution of condomns to combat AIDS in Africa. Effectively leading to more people getting the disease, and dying, slowly and painfully, from it.

@riddlergeist: Most atheists do act like atheists. Not believing in things that cannot be proven, and acting according to their own moral compass, rather than pretending to follow a moral code from a book.

@dshipp17:

"Christians have some proof for God's existence."

And yet, not a single christian has actually provided any evidence to support their claim of god's existence, in any of the countless debates that have taken place.

"Atheist have no proof that there is no God and even scientist on their side admit to that fact."

This is true, but Atheists don't have to provide proof that there is no god. The theists are the ones making the positive claim, thus the burden of proof is on them. And they have yet to provide a single piece of solid evidence.

"Atheists have been challenged by Christians but never show up for the debates"

Just like several christians have been challenged, but never shown up, or outright denied the challenges. It just happens more often with christians, than the other way around.

"atheists even have a $10,000 reward available to demonstrate that there is no God"

Yes, atheists also have a, iirc, 100 thousand dollar reward, for conclusive evidence of anything supernatural. A reward that has been on the table for more than 15 years, and has never been claimed.

"although atheists can desire to challenge our evidence that there is a God, with little success I might add, atheists have yet to present evidence that there can be absolutely no God or there's absolutely no evidence of God"

Atheists don't have to prove that there is no God, they don't make that claim in the first place. On the other hand, despite more than a hundred years of trying, christians have not provided a single piece of conclusive evidence to support their claim that god exists.

"But, please, just lay out how what I said lacks logic and lets debate; sometimes, I'll provide my references. I'm actually a trained scientist who happens to be Christian."

A trained scientist that, based on your comments, apparently doesn't understand the burden of proof, or the scientific method.

I don't suppose you got your scientific "training" at something like the Liberty University(and I use the word university, in the loosest possible way)?

--------------

Christianity: Believing that if God tells you to, it must be ok. That includes rape, robbery, mass-murder, pedophilia, slavery, brain washing, child abuse, lying, stealing, etc. etc.

A person who, in his life, has done all of the above, will be forgiven and go to "heaven" if he simply accepts jesus as his savior. While a good person, who has spent his life helping others, or an infant that dies of sickness in its early years, but was born in the wrong part of the world, will burn in hell for eternity.

#9 Edited by SirMethos (1269 posts) - - Show Bio

@alberto_weskardo: He might need a little time, to gather his power, but yes.

He has feats that confirms him as an actual galaxy-buster, as well as one of him creating a galaxy(iirc), which takes more power than simply destroying one.

So again, if someone thinks Thanos is more powerful than Odin, then I'm really looking forward to seeing a galaxy-busting feat for Thanos, to back up the claim.

#10 Posted by SirMethos (1269 posts) - - Show Bio

@nick_hero22:

1. There is nothing in the comment to indicate that it is "shao kahn specific", or specific in any other way for that matter. As I pointed out in my last post, if you means something other, or more, than what you actually said(which apparently you did), then the misunderstanding is due to you being unclear.

And I said that our blood being red is a by-product of iron/hemoglobin. Not necessarily that any blood being red, is automatically a by-product of the same thing. I'm starting to agree with you that there is selective reading in play here, but it's not on my part.

2. I brought up evolution to explain why we(humans) have iron in our blood.

Shao Kahn being from outworld does not necessarily invalidate him from having iron-rich blood. But it means that we cannot automatically assume that he has iron-rich blood, since there are many other possible reasons that could be in play.

And I'm not assuming anything, that's the entire point. You, on the other hand, seem to make several assumptions, the primary one being that red blood equals iron-rich blood.

3. Actually, I don't have to explain anything here. My entire point, has been to show that you can't make assumptions about it. it is asinine to assume that a native of, not just another planet, but another dimension entirely, has the same biological components as humans, simply because they have a similar color of blood.

But I would love to hear your explanation on why Shao Kahn having red blood, automatically means that his blood contains iron-rich hemoglobins.

4. I don't have to know anything about you, to make a judgement on how you are acting, I just have to read your post. In this case, you were being a condescending arsehole, and as previously mentioned, I responded in kind. If you don't want people being condescending towards you, then you should start by dropping it yourself.

As I have told countless people, who got butthurt over my treating them based on their behavior: "If you don't want to be treated like an idiot, then don't act like one. It's really quite simple."

I will point you to my exchange with Baberaham_Lincoln in this match, since he/she raised pretty much the same argument, about whether or not to judge people on their behavior.