Is the lack of faith of Atheists due to theists' failure to support their claims?

[outhouse]

That we would call a baby's perception of their mother as a God

Is in your mind only not that of any child.

 

[Shad]

Isn't there's physics forum you can hang out in somewhere where everyone can agree with your dualistic absolutism?
There are no absolutes, not God, not religion, not science. They are all merely conceptual abstractions of a reality that cannot be known in itself.

You brought up physics not I. You quoted-mined not I. Why do I need to go to a physic forum when you are the one attempting to use physics as part of your argument? I just objected to your misunderstanding of physics and quote-mining.

-Neils Bohr.

Is a quote from from Aage Petersen not Bohr. Bohr never said this. This is what happens when you quote-mine rather than do proper research

 

[Shad]

Sure I can. I have as well.

As far as me "not get[ting] to require anything"

That is cute. I am sorry you have failed to grasp how this was intended. But your unsubstantiated, wrongly framed opinion is noted.

That we would call a baby's perception of their mother as a God were the perceptions objectively true makes the statement to a baby mom is God, true.

This is called agency, it does not mean that a child sees their parents as a god. Agency has many levels not just a god level.

 

[Curious George]

This is called agency, it does not mean that a child sees their parents as a god. Agency has many levels not just a god level.

Yes, but infallible, immortal, indescribable, incomprehensible entity who controls seemingly everything qualifies as a God yes?

 

[Curious George]

Is in your mind only not that of any child.

I am hoping the lack of logic in making such a statement was not lost on you while posting.

 

[Dhyana]

Is a quote from from Aage Petersen not Bohr. Bohr never said this. This is what happens when you quote-mine rather than do proper research

Well, excuse me. Did Peterson not state this in a book entitled "the Philosophy of Niels Bohr" and attribute it to Bohr, even if it was not an exact quote? Even if it is not an exact quote does that make it any less true?

Did Bohr not also say this?:

Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real

 

[Dhyana]

You brought up physics not I. You quoted-mined not I. Why do I need to go to a physic forum when you are the one attempting to use physics as part of your argument? I just objected to your misunderstanding of physics and quote-mining.

As if YOU, obviously NOT a physicist, understand quantum physics, and not just your idiosyncratic personal selective interpretation thereof ?

AFAIC, you are nothing but another pompous self important know-it-all that trolls internet fora with fraudulent omniscience. There's at least one in every forum on the net, ruining many a topic for everyone else.

 

[outhouse]

Yes, but infallible, immortal, indescribable, incomprehensible entity who controls seemingly everything qualifies as a God yes?

Men describe deities in thousands of different ways.

Just because people define god with parental love, does not mean children look at parents as deities.

 

[gnostic]

The issue is science education. People are not taught proper terminology so easily confuse words with what they believe is the proper term rather than looking at it in context. An good example are climate change deniers using the phrase "It's just a theory".

Being ignorant is not too bad, because they have the chance to learn and recognize their mistake.

I think people are stupid, if they can't learn, no matter how many times they have been explained to them, or corrected them on the proper scientific definitions. Stupidity is being stubbornly ignorant.

I find most creationists and quite few theists are downright stupid in the matter of science, because we have to repeatedly teach them, explain to them or correct them every single time they have posted on these science vs religion threads.

How many times can you explain to each one of them about "scientific theory" before we have to conclude that they are just stupid because of their religions have indoctrinated them at being stupid?

I am about to reply to Dhyana about what is a scientific theory is, and explain the differences between empirical science and theoretical science (again), but I have no great expectation that he will recognize his mistake or that he will learn something new today.

 

[Curious George]

Men describe deities in thousands of different ways.

Just because people define god with parental love, does not mean children look at parents as deities.

Yes, but when those characteristics are filled and but the person does not call it their God, we call it their God still. What better word do we have for an infallible, immortal being on whose influence the person's being depends?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Yes, but you are using concepts you have now to determine that.

From the baby's perspective, mom is akin to God, they just don't have the ability to describe it thus.

Mum isn't akin to God. There is no concept of God. YOU are using a concept you have now. No childs first word is God. It is meaningless until meaning is learnt. Mum suffices.

 

[gnostic]

That's right. But no way to determine. All theories equally speculative and unprovable

You are wrong, dhyana.

Multiverse cosmologies are provable; they are just NOT testable.

Multiverse cosmology is theoretical physics, not experimental physics. And theoretical physics rely on mathematical models and mathematical equations, not on tests or evidences.

In the language of science, evidence and proof are two different things.

Most science rely on verifiable evidences or testable predictions, and less on proof. Theoretical physics rely on proof, and "proof" being mathematical models and equations, but lest on empirical evidences and experiments.

The Big Bang cosmology used to be theoretical physics, but have been verified through observations and tests. Observations as in the detections of the cosmic background

Which is exactly my point. If it's untestable, it's idle speculation having no more footing than any rudimentary religion

If you are saying that ALL scientific theories are "idle speculation", then you really don't understand science at all.

Experimental physics or empirical physics, as stated earlier, have theories that can be tested. Most other scientific branches (physics, chemistry, biology) fall under "empirical" or "experimental" umbrella, because they are testable.

If all theories are just speculation, then there wouldn't be modern technology, like computers, mobile phones, cars, airplanes.

A theory...in the realms of science...is a scientific explanation of the natural and artificial (like computer, electronics, man-made stuffs) worlds, that can be tested, through the scientific method.

In the areas of physics, the theory of Relativity (both Special Relativity and General Relativity), Quantum Physics, and the Big Bang cosmology, all used to be theoretical physics, but since evidences (and therefore verifiable and testable) have been found in all three of them, their theories are no longer "theoretical".

The cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) was discovered in the 1960s (and confirmed again recently by the WAMP mission), verified that the universe have been expanding since 13.6 billion years ago. This mean the Big Bang cosmology is testable.

The same can't be said about the multiverse cosmology, because it is untestable, but is provable by mathematical models and equations, hence multiverse cosmology falls under theoretical astrophysics. Other untestable cosmologies are the Big Rip, Big Bounce, Big Crunch, all of which fall under theoretical astrophysics.

Other theoretical physics in modern science, are string theory, superstring theory, M-theory.

Scientific "proof" is mathematical model or mathematical equation; proof is not the same things as evidence, experimentation or test.

Theories that are testable, hence empirical science, can be found in gravity, relativity, evolution, electronics, computers, engineering.

Evolution, like electronics and engineering, have real world application. The study of medicine, diseases (like bacterial and viral diseases), genetics, required understanding of evolution (biology).

So if most theories have real-life or real world application, then those theories are not just "idle speculation". For you to say it is, showed that don't known anything about scientific theory.

I hoped that you grasp what I am saying, because I am tired of theists who deliberately (or deceptively) misuse or misrepresent what science have to say.

 

[Curious George]

Mum isn't akin to God. There is no concept of God. YOU are using a concept you have now. No childs first word is God. It is meaningless until meaning is learnt. Mum suffices.

Yes, I am using an abstract concept of god. This is how we determine what qualifies as God or not God. Baby's concept of mom is a God. That the baby doesn't call her God means little. If you believed in an infallible, immortal entity that was incomprehensible but you did not label it, I would still say you believe in a god.

 

[gnostic]

Yes, but when those characteristics are filled and but the person does not call it their God, we call it their God still. What better word do we have for an infallible, immortal being on whose influence the person's being depends?

Sorry but do you have any evidence that support the existence of this "infallible, immortal being" that's not just your personal faith or belief?

 

[Curious George]

Sorry but do you have any evidence that support the existence of this "infallible, immortal being" that's not just your personal faith or belief?

Certainly, logic.

 

[Curious George]

Sorry but do you have any evidence that support the existence of this "infallible, immortal being" that's not just your personal faith or belief?

Are you suggesting baby's mothers do not exist?

 

[Dhyana]

You are wrong, dhyana.

Multiverse cosmologies are provable; they are just NOT testable.

Multiverse cosmology is theoretical physics, not experimental physics. And theoretical physics rely on mathematical models and mathematical equations, not on tests or evidences.

In the language of science, evidence and proof are two different things.

Most science rely on verifiable evidences or testable predictions, and less on proof. Theoretical physics rely on proof, and "proof" being mathematical models and equations, but lest on empirical evidences and experiments.

The Big Bang cosmology used to be theoretical physics, but have been verified through observations and tests. Observations as in the detections of the cosmic background


If you are saying that ALL scientific theories are "idle speculation", then you really don't understand science at all.

Experimental physics or empirical physics, as stated earlier, have theories that can be tested. Most other scientific branches (physics, chemistry, biology) fall under "empirical" or "experimental" umbrella, because they are testable.

If all theories are just speculation, then there wouldn't be modern technology, like computers, mobile phones, cars, airplanes.

A theory...in the realms of science...is a scientific explanation of the natural and artificial (like computer, electronics, man-made stuffs) worlds, that can be tested, through the scientific method.

In the areas of physics, the theory of Relativity (both Special Relativity and General Relativity), Quantum Physics, and the Big Bang cosmology, all used to be theoretical physics, but since evidences (and therefore verifiable and testable) have been found in all three of them, their theories are no longer "theoretical".

The cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR) was discovered in the 1960s (and confirmed again recently by the WAMP mission), verified that the universe have been expanding since 13.6 billion years ago. This mean the Big Bang cosmology is testable.

The same can't be said about the multiverse cosmology, because it is untestable, but is provable by mathematical models and equations, hence multiverse cosmology falls under theoretical astrophysics. Other untestable cosmologies are the Big Rip, Big Bounce, Big Crunch, all of which fall under theoretical astrophysics.

Other theoretical physics in modern science, are string theory, superstring theory, M-theory.

Scientific "proof" is mathematical model or mathematical equation; proof is not the same things as evidence, experimentation or test.

Theories that are testable, hence empirical science, can be found in gravity, relativity, evolution, electronics, computers, engineering.

Evolution, like electronics and engineering, have real world application. The study of medicine, diseases (like bacterial and viral diseases), genetics, required understanding of evolution (biology).

So if most theories have real-life or real world application, then those theories are not just "idle speculation". For you to say it is, showed that don't known anything about scientific theory.

I hoped that you grasp what I am saying, because I am tired of theists who deliberately (or deceptively) misuse or misrepresent what science have to say.

So you stereotype me as one of those? No, I'm one who is willing to learn anything that sounds provocative and interesting. Quantum physics does, both practically and philosophically. Multiverse does not, even if provable mathematically, it sounds philosophically nutty

 

[gnostic]

Certainly, logic.

Logic can only take you so far.

Evidences are better.

Believing in omnipotent and omniscient immortal being is not logic, but blind faith.

 

[Curious George]

Logic can only take you so far.

Evidences are better.

Believing in omnipotent and omniscient immortal being is not logic, but blind faith.

Whoah there I did not say omnipotent. I can't prove that one.

I never said they were correct in believing in such things. Just that they do enables us to refer to those beings as their gods.

 

[gnostic]

Are you suggesting baby's mothers do not exist?

Sorry, but you are comparing chicken to a doorknob.

A mother is not immortal or infallible. Are you saying that a mother has these quality of a deity?

What have you been smoking or injecting, George? Can I have some?