Yes you did
Liar…
Again beliefs are necessary for us to interact with the world, at no point did I say or even imply belief in scientific facts were necessary for them to hold true, that’s a lie you made up.
Actually, you did seem to express that, although not explicitly.
- Your words: “We [need beliefs] to interact with reality.”
- Reality: Humans interact with reality in order to conduct Science, i.e. to construct Science’s true methodology/results.
Do you now see how you are reasonably claiming that Science’s trueness necessitates belief?
You lied, and now you’re trolling. We seem to have an infestation of late, it happens from time to time, but they allays get bored and leave. And of course they are never missed.
Nope, I neither said it, nor implied it, and the ever so subtle shifting of the goal posts won’t save your blushes.
1 Like
So you continue to ignore that no such lie was told.
You continue to ignore that humans interact with reality to construct Science’s trueness, while you state humans [need] belief to interact with particularly that same reality.
- You must reasonably see by now, that if humans are known to interact with reality to construct Science, and you claim humans need belief to interact with said reality, that the same belief that you claim is required for reality’s interaction, is a requirement for Scientific trueness’ construction.
Why is it that when one is shown to be wrong, (namely yourself in this particular case) the wrong doer claims the one in the right (myself in this case) to be supposedly trolling?
You assigned a claim to me I hadn’t made, after I called you on your original false claim. I asked you to quote one poster here who’d made such a claim, and you linked my post.
I exposed your lie by quoting my original post verbatim, you responded by doubling down on your mendacity, and using edited quotes from my post. You then dishonestly tried to move the goal posts by citing a different claim you’d made, but one that still misrepresented what I had said.
Stop pretending to be a god, and try being a man, and admit I never claimed or implied that scientific truths needed people to believe them in order to be held as true.
No, this is still a grossly dishonest misrepresentation of what I said, and your duplicity increases each time you attempt to pretend otherwise. You’ve even altered the claim a third time now, pathetically dishonest.
1 Like
The only thing you’ve shown here is your dishonesty, and I shall leave it at that. It’s clear your ego can’t take your ridiculous fantasies being criticised. Thus you’ve thrown up this dishonest smokescreen of a lie rather than address my actual argument against your ludicrous notion that we can exist without believing anything, or the equally asinine semantics about the definition of the word beliefs.
1 Like
GodBennettAtheist
“Believe in science??” No idea at all what that means. There is no “thing” called “science” that I am aware of. Perhaps you are referring to the various steps or techniques of the scientific method? If so, which step do you have a problem with? Perhaps you are disputing some of the findings of science? Well, findings are challenged all the time. Look at “Gravity.” We have two perfectly fine models that explain most of what we know and yet they are nothing alike. Which one do you want to believe is the only true explanation of gravity?
Here in lies the mistake. Religious people operate in the world on a sense of belief. No one needs to believe in science for science to be demonstrable and useful. If you drive a car, ride a bike, wear clothes, eat food bought from a supermarket, wear glasses, or take medicine when you are sick - you are relying on science. You rely on it whether or not you believe in it.
2 Likes
You’re constantly mentioning that I have supposedly lied, but you are yet to address that no such lie was told in contrast, where instead your early words confirm clearly, my prior expression.
Simply put:
- You originally said “We [ need beliefs ] to interact with reality.” (As I quote you here)
- If you scroll back, notice what I say now, has not changed since my original response.
-
I pointed out that humans interact with the same reality above, to construct Scientific trueness.
-
It should be clear to anyone here, that you are saying that humans need belief in order for Science to hold true.
How else would Science hold true by your initial words, if humans cannot interact with reality (to conduct Science/construct Science’s trueness) without belief?
Please address the above question, rather than continue to make claims, while failing to substantiate your claims of my supposed dishonesty with links to those so called comments of mine.
The moment you address my question below (with evidence), is the moment I admit any supposed error.
Either you address that question, or I just decline from further interactions with your unevidenced claims.
As the OP had long mentioned: “Science is true regardless of belief”:
After reading through the last dozen or so posts by our our little friend, I’m just about convinced it’s just another troll.
Am I being too hasty?
3 Likes
Consistent, repeatable, and observable results that can be confirmed by third parties.
1 Like
Spoken like a true graduate of the 3ed grade. Science can not be true. There is nothing there to be true. “Science” makes no truth claims. Science is a process of observation, evaluation, and it is used by people to support truth claims. People make truth claims using science. Science is nothing more than a useful tool. We use it because it works. When you find something better, we will use that instead.
SCIENCE: noun
- The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
Where do you see a truth claim? Calling science true, completely misses the point of engaging in science. Science is merely the best method we have to date for supporting claims of truth made by people.
4 Likes
That’s a lie, and I’m more than happy for others to decide whether your entire op premise is an honest assessment of what I said.
You lied, and endlessly denying it and shifting the goal posts won’t change that.
What’s more I have repeatedly said in this thread I neither intended to say nor imply, that scientific facts only hold true because we believe them. So your persistent semantics are demonstrably a pathetic mendacious attempt to misrepresent me.
One more time…I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT SCIENTIFIC TRUTHS ONLY HOLD TRUE BECAUSE WE BELIEVE THEM, AND I NEVER BELIEVED THIS TO BE THE CASE.
Now, I dare you to lie and misrepresent me again, as I will repeat that assertion each time, and link this post.
Your ball, Bullwinkle.
I certainly think he has issues. He doesn’t like it when people don’t recognise his genius, which is a problem for a start, given the asinine stuff he posits.
Let us lay this out. If his story is true, a genius assembles amazing software that has the potential for great advances in understanding. But this news has not been revealed to the public. Instead, this self-proclaimed genius is in a very tiny forum bragging. And would anyone who originated such wonderful software be hanging around here, on the receiving end of challenges and a hard time?
IMO anyone who actually assembled such software, and if it was successful, that person would be on lecture tours and hailed by other members of the software assembler world. Major companies would be bidding for his services.
Many years ago I was in Yahoo chat, and this character popped in and bragged about how rich his dad was, he lived in a mansion in California, drove a Ferrari and had a glorious party life and had women hanging off him
I popped his bubble when I pointed out that by his local time, it was 9:00 PM on a Friday …
If that lifestyle was true, that dude would be out partying and getting laid instead bragging in a chat room.
1 Like
Not unlike Breezy constantly bragging he’d evidenced flaws that falsified species evolution.
It’s been several years of course, and still no Nobel prize, or ticker tape parade thrown by the religions of the world.
Delusions of grandeur is bad enough, but to be so delusional they are baffled that strangers on the internet don’t prostrate themselves in due deference to their genius is pretty fucking hilarious.
@Sheldon When smug meets reality.
1 Like
I think you will find in general many regulars here want people to clearly define key words before they debate. Many of us have learned this the hard way, when we get long threads of back and forth that could of been negated by people clearly stating their position and requisite definitions early on.
Me personally I find links to videos and websites on key components of a debate to be “lazy.”
If I wanted to watch a video of someone’s position, I would go look at videos not start here. I come here to debate with the person, not some pre-recorded video. And really, if you are happy with a certain definition, why not copy and paste the words in with correct credits to the original author(s.)
Additionally I have a career in cyber security. Perhaps this career has made me paranoid, but I am also well aware of the dangers of following links blindly. It is frightening easy for someone to create a link that will allow the creator to track the person as soon as they click on the link. I could create a link that everyone that clicks it, will reveal their ip address, and worse, any social media profiles of people, if they use them regularly within the same browser. From their it would be an easy step to know the person’s true name, location etc. that clicked the link.
I am here in part because I feel I can freely state my opinions and thoughts without repercussion to me, I can fairly comfortably assume my privacy is safe, (to as far as I trust the admin/owners of atheistrepublic.com.) A trust relationship that has been built up over years.)