Isn't it true that the more a group tries to censor it's members, the more suspect it is?

[Subduction Zone]

Who decides what is reliable, you ? I'll present nothing. I have many many times in this forum, I have no need or inclination to do so again

If you present evidence I can explain to you why it is reliable or not. That is more than reasonable.

ETA: You have claimed that you have posted this "evidence" many times to no avail. Did it ever occur to you that it may not be reliable evidence?

 

[Mock Turtle]

More than that my friend, you ought to do a little research on your own.

Done more than enough thanks - to satisfy myself at least.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The problem that various theists run into is when they claim to "know". Of course the supposed knowledge of one religious view is often quite different from the supposed religious knowledge of another religious view. That alone tells us that at least one of them does not "know". When one points out that a religious person does not "know" they quite often take offense at that. They really shouldn't. If they just admitted that they believe in their god or gods they would not get so much flak. I won't say that a person does not believe something if they claim that, but when they claim to know something they put the burden of proof upon themselves.

 

[shmogie]

One does not need to be a "super scientist" to research the claims to see how they are reliably supported time after time. You are trying to set up a ridiculous level of participation. And the science still beats religion hands down since it has a well earned respect. Religion merely has a tradition, largely backed by threats and violence.

So, you research the evidence, say of E=MC squared. You understand all the equations. You understand all the implications of space time, you understand all the impications of red/blue shift, you understand how gravity can bend light and why, you understand what infinite density means, as well as how a black hole processes matter it has sucked in, etc. NOW you are qualified to evaluate the evidence.

Your last sentence is BS. Ignorant opinion has no weight.

 

[shmogie]

Done more than enough thanks - to satisfy myself at least.

That's all you really have to satisfy, isn't it ?

 

[shmogie]

The problem that various theists run into is when they claim to "know". Of course the supposed knowledge of one religious view is often quite different from the supposed religious knowledge of another religious view. That alone tells us that at least one of them does not "know". When one points out that a religious person does not "know" they quite often take offense at that. They really shouldn't. If they just admitted that they believe in their god or gods they would not get so much flak. I won't say that a person does not believe something if they claim that, but when they claim to know something they put the burden of proof upon themselves.

You still haven't defined what knowing is. I have no burden to prove anything to you. I may, if I choose, but I don't choose to. How do you know you are your fathers son ? If I demanded you prove it, then must you because the "burden" is on you ?

 

[shmogie]

You seem to think it gives your views and/or beliefs any credibility - which of course it doesn't.

But I don't care if you think my views are credible ! Frankly, what you think of anything means nothing to me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So, you research the evidence, say of E=MC squared. You understand all the equations. You understand all the implications of space time, you understand all the impications of red/blue shift, you understand how gravity can bend light and why, you understand what infinite density means, as well as how a black hole processes matter it has sucked in, etc. NOW you are qualified to evaluate the evidence.

Your last sentence is BS. Ignorant opinion has no weight.

I didn't say that and by your supposed standards you should be far beyond being a weak atheist. By your standards you should be declaring that no gods exist at all. You are not being consistent.

You merely hate the fact that you have no reliable evidence. I can show you the reliable evidence for the theory of relativity.

 

[Neb]

If you want to. Go ahead and limit yourself to that one.

the reason why I said that is because the "a god and various gods" really do not have any evidence of their existence at all. And why is the Bible not good enough as evidence?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You still haven't defined what knowing is. I have no burden to prove anything to you. I may, if I choose, but I don't choose to. How do you know you are your fathers son ? If I demanded you prove it, then must you because the "burden" is on you ?

I have. By claiming that knowledge is demonstrable I have given a working definition of it. If you claim to know something you can show why it is true. I can show you how we know that the theory of evolution is correct. I can show you how we know that the theory of relativity is correct. Yet you so far have run away when people demand evidence from you.

I am not going by your standards since you are inconsistent in not applying those same standards to your beliefs.

And yes, if you don't want others to think that your claims are worthless, when you claim to "know" something you do put the burden upon yourself. If you can't support your claims it is obvious that you do not know, and that you are only fooling yourself at best.

When I claim to "know" that something is right I can demonstrate how we know that. I put the same burden of proof upon myself that I put upon others.

 

[Subduction Zone]

the reason why I said that is because the "a god and various gods" really do not have any evidence of their existence at all. And why is the Bible not good enough as evidence?

The Bible fails when objectively tested. Why would anyone treat it as evidence at all?

 

[shmogie]

Then present some reliable evidence. And just because it is reliable to you does not mean that it is evidence. It needs to be reliable regardless of who presents it or observes it.

I have no need to provide anything. Uh, think about your last sentence. Reliable to whom ? Everybody ? anybody ? just you?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have no need to provide anything. Uh, think about your last sentence. Reliable to whom ? Everybody ? anybody ? just you?

Reliable to any unbiased observer. I do not think that you qualify as such. You have been getting rather angry at simple corrections. That indicates a huge bias.

 

[TruePathFinder]

So, you research the evidence, say of E=MC squared. You understand all the equations. You understand all the implications of space time, you understand all the impications of red/blue shift, you understand how gravity can bend light and why, you understand what infinite density means, as well as how a black hole processes matter it has sucked in, etc. NOW you are qualified to evaluate the evidence.

Your last sentence is BS. Ignorant opinion has no weight.

Do you have a phd in theology? Have you systematically studied the whole bible. Are you a biblical historian?

 

[Neb]

I can show you how we know that the theory of evolution is correct.

I hate to be the dumb guy here, but how is "the theory of evolution is correct", again? Can you explain this?

 

[shmogie]

I have. By claiming that knowledge is demonstrable I have given a working definition of it. If you claim to know something you can show why it is true. I can show you how we know that the theory of evolution is correct. I can show you how we know that the theory of relativity is correct. Yet you so far have run away when people demand evidence from you.

I am not going by your standards since you are inconsistent in not applying those same standards to your beliefs.

People have demanded evidence from me for years, and I have provided it. I don't anymore. You are making the demands. Your demands are not inherently something I am required to fulfill.

You never answered my specific questions about relativity. If you know it is true, but yet are not a mathematician and physicist, then you believe it is true. If you are not qualified to evaluate the evidence, then you can only believe, not know.

You know I won't acede to your demands. You have a few choices in response. Badger, call names or make pejorative statements, or just accept it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I hate to be the dumb guy here, but how is "the theory of evolution is correct", again? Can you explain this?

Because it is supported by mountains of scientific evidence. Because it has been tested and confirmed many times over. Because there is no real opposition to the theory at all.

 

[shmogie]

Do you have a phd in theology? Have you systematically studied the whole bible. Are you a biblical historian?

Ah, the light is beginning to shine in

 

[shmogie]

Because it is supported by mountains of scientific evidence. Because it has been tested and confirmed many times over. Because there is no real opposition to the theory at all.

Amount of opposition equals truth ? Macro evolution has holes big enough in it to drive trucks through. There is significant opposition to the THEORY

 

[Subduction Zone]

People have demanded evidence from me for years, and I have provided it. I don't anymore. You are making the demands. Your demands are not inherently something I am required to fulfill.

You never answered my specific questions about relativity. If you know it is true, but yet are not a mathematician and physicist, then you believe it is true. If you are not qualified to evaluate the evidence, then you can only believe, not know.

You know I won't acede to your demands. You have a few choices in response. Badger, call names or make pejorative statements, or just accept it.

People demand evidence because you make claims that you need to support. If you simply said "I believe" then the demands would go way down since mere belief is different from knowledge. When you claim to know and then can't support your claim it becomes quite evident that you do not "know".

You have not even asked proper questions about relativity. A proper question does not have an assumption buried within it. I think we have gone over this concept before. For example the question "Have you quit beating your wife yet?" has an assumption that you are beating your wife in it. It is not a proper question.

If you ask an improper question I will explain why it is improper and offer and alternative. Sound reasonable?