Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
PStryder

Definitions - The Words We Use Matter.

Recommended Posts

So, I wonder how long before I get banned?

 

When I use a word, I use it on purpose, because of the exact meaning it has. I mean what the words I say mean, nothing more or less. If I have referred you to this post, it's because you are trying to claim I used a word meaning something other than what the word means. Now, I understand words have multiple meanings, so to prevent confusion, I will be posting the exact definition I mean when I use a word. As needed, I will update this post.

 

True (truth): That which accurately reflects the objective reality we all share.

 

Objective: Does not change when the reference frame (or point of view, or perspective) of the observer changes. (For instance, the speed of light is objective. It is ALWAYS c, no matter how you look at it. Less physical example, rape is objectively wrong - there is no perspective or attitude that excuses rape.)

 

Reality: the universe we live in, and the physical, natural laws that govern the behavoir of matter and energy within it.

 

 

 

About me: I was raised a Jehovah's Witness. JWs are old-earth special creaitionists - and they are wrong. The lies the WTB&TS print about evolution and the nature of reality is why I am now an atheist. (Yes, I said lies. I said it on purpose.) I am an atheist because I have thought long and hard on the issue. Please do not insult me by making statements about why I am an atheist; you are almost certainly wrong.

 

I have morals, I have ethics, and I got them from the same place you did. (Hint, not your God.)

 

I consider myselg a gnostic atheist. I have come to the conclusion that there is no god, there cannot be anything I would recognize as a god, and the evidence is sufficient for me. Notice, I did not say I can convince you. I will not 'prove' to you there is no god - I can't. I proved to MYSELF there is no god.

 

Yes, I do think you are wrong when you claim there is a god. You are factually incorrect as far as I can tell.

 

Evolution happened, is happening, and will continue to happen - and your opinion is meaningless. The theory of evolution explains the mechanism behind how it happens, not whether or not evolution happens. Evolution is a fact of the objective reality we all share.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Making these kind of statements without posting something to back up what you are saying really doesn't get far here. If you came to offend people and sound arrogant, great, because that is likely how this post will be interpreted by many(if not most) of the users here.

 

"Truth"

The truth is, the users here believe that their views/interpretations of reality are the truth. Just as much as you, believe it or not. So, stating this does absolutely nothing to help your point.

 

"Less physical example, rape is objectively wrong - there is no perspective or attitude that excuses rape.)"

There is no human perspective that excuses rape. From a different species of animal's perspective, rape is not bad. Is it? Lions or dogs...etc.

 

"Evolution is a fact of the objective reality we all share."

Though it is my personal opinion that you are correct in stating this, you must show why/how this is a fact of reality.

 

Good luck. You may not get very far. When it comes down to something that does not make sense/can not be explained in the light of Creation theory, God trumps science every time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Making these kind of statements without posting something to back up what you are saying really doesn't get far here.

 

My assumption was this is an intro post where you provide your stance, and then later you argue the point and provide evidence elsewhere.

 

 

"Truth"

The truth is, the users here believe that their views/interpretations of reality are the truth. Just as much as you, believe it or not. So, stating this does absolutely nothing to help your point.

 

I do not hold that stance. My stance is that truth is what it is, and your opinion or belief has no bearing on what is true. The best thing you can do is adjust your beliefs to match truth, not claim that your beliefs are true and plug your ears when reality disagrees.

 

"Evolution is a fact of the objective reality we all share."

Though it is my personal opinion that you are correct in stating this, you must show why/how this is a fact of reality.

 

I hope to do so in the discussion areas, but again, my understanding was that this is not the area for that kind of post.

 

Good luck. You may not get very far. When it comes down to something that does not make sense/can not be explained in the light of Creation theory, God trumps science every time.

 

Not everytime. There are many of us that have become atheists BECAUSE science trumped God.

 

I think the most important factor in determining whether or not science trumps God is found in how a person answers this question: Do you care whether or not what you believe is true?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome to the forums PStryder. smile.png

 

I don't know why you think you will be banned (unless you are secretly planning to break the rules), but I hope you enjoy yourself here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome to the forums PStryder. smile.png

 

I don't know why you think you will be banned (unless you are secretly planning to break the rules), but I hope you enjoy yourself here.

My experience has been that if you call creationism what it is objectively is, (wrong) and do not take great pains to 'respect' this mistaken idea, you will be banned from creationist forums.

 

I will not be rude, but I will not equivocate; creationism is 100% factually incorrect, evolution is true, and there is no god.

 

Creationism is not 'another way of interpreting the data'. Faith is not 'another way of knowing'. If you do not accept evolution as true, you either do not understand evolution, or you are lying. There is no third option.

 

I give everyone the benefit of the doubt and assume they misunderstand evolution. At first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My experience has been that if you call creationism what it is objectively is, (wrong) and do not take great pains to 'respect' this mistaken idea, you will be banned from creationist forums.

 

I will not be rude, but I will not equivocate; creationism is 100% factually incorrect, evolution is true, and there is no god.

 

Creationism is not 'another way of interpreting the data'. Faith is not 'another way of knowing'. If you do not accept evolution as true, you either do not understand evolution, or you are lying. There is no third option.

 

I give everyone the benefit of the doubt and assume they misunderstand evolution. At first.

 

Well.. yeah... I kind of picked up the fact that you were an atheist when I read your profile information, but thanks for being explicit and clear about it. Anyway, as I said, enjoy yourself here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Making these kind of statements without posting something to back up what you are saying really doesn't get far here. If you came to offend people and sound arrogant, great, because that is likely how this post will be interpreted by many(if not most) of the users here.

 

"Truth"

The truth is, the users here believe that their views/interpretations of reality are the truth. Just as much as you, believe it or not. So, stating this does absolutely nothing to help your point.

 

"Less physical example, rape is objectively wrong - there is no perspective or attitude that excuses rape.)"

There is no human perspective that excuses rape. From a different species of animal's perspective, rape is not bad. Is it? Lions or dogs...etc.

 

"Evolution is a fact of the objective reality we all share."

Though it is my personal opinion that you are correct in stating this, you must show why/how this is a fact of reality.

 

Good luck. You may not get very far. When it comes down to something that does not make sense/can not be explained in the light of Creation theory, God trumps science every time.

Megan I rather agree.

 

In particular I think the use of the word "fact" in relation to theories of science is a philosophical error, as well as overstating the claims of science. Evolution is a funny case though, because it can be seen BOTH as a theory (which is a potentially falsifiable model of reality rather than a fact) AND as a direct observation (acquisition of drug resistance by bacteria and cancers for example). Of course, in the creationist world you then get into huge disputes about micro v.s macro and so on. But on the whole I think it best with creationists to stress the modesty of the claims of science, as I think it is perceived certainty (akin to dogmatic faith) that they smell and react against.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Megan I rather agree.

 

In particular I think the use of the word "fact" in relation to theories of science is a philosophical error, as well as overstating the claims of science. Evolution is a funny case though, because it can be seen BOTH as a theory (which is a potentially falsifiable model of reality rather than a fact) AND as a direct observation (acquisition of drug resistance by bacteria and cancers for example). Of course, in the creationist world you then get into huge disputes about micro v.s macro and so on. But on the whole I think it best with creationists to stress the modesty of the claims of science, as I think it is perceived certainty (akin to dogmatic faith) that they smell and react against.

I think the reason for their reaction is a category error in their method of thinking. Since everything in their worldview is based on dogma, then they assume that everyone else must use the same process they do for concluding their beliefs are facts.

 

They do not understand how science or rational inductive reasoning works. They understand a caricature of evolution; a strawman that is NOT what the theory actually is. Nor do they properly understand the nature of evidence.

 

They like to claim that evolutionists and creationists are simply 'interpreting the data differently.' Evidence can only support a single view, not both via different interpretations.

 

Have you seen the back and forth between me and Calypsis4 in the threads I have posted? He is not using any reasoning, simply dogmatic assertion of the truth of his beliefs in spite of existing evidence. He doesn't even understand his own thought processes, much less how to do reason, logic, and science right.

 

I mean, I know that what he has posted seems right to him, but to anyone with any understanding of logic and scientific process, he is just rationalizing his pre-determined conclusion instead of following evidence and a path of logic.

 

How can you have a rational conversation with someone who does not agree with you about what reality is and the nature of logical thought?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Megan I rather agree.

 

In particular I think the use of the word "fact" in relation to theories of science is a philosophical error, as well as overstating the claims of science. Evolution is a funny case though, because it can be seen BOTH as a theory (which is a potentially falsifiable model of reality rather than a fact) AND as a direct observation (acquisition of drug resistance by bacteria and cancers for example). Of course, in the creationist world you then get into huge disputes about micro v.s macro and so on. But on the whole I think it best with creationists to stress the modesty of the claims of science, as I think it is perceived certainty (akin to dogmatic faith) that they smell and react against.

 

Actually the drug resistance "evidence" of evolution was proven wrong ages ago with the discovery of bacteria in the gut of explorers in antarctica who lived before the use of antibiotics, (meaning the bacteria in the gut of these explorers were never in contact with antibiotics yet displayed resistance genes anyway). What this means is that antibiotic resistance didn't evolve, it is not an example of new functions. However the percentage of the bacterial population that has these resistance genes will increase due to selection, this is what we observe... However selection of one population over another doesn't support the idea that bacteria can "evolve" new large-scale structural changes in order to become something other than a bacteria cell.

 

R. McQuire, “Eerie: human Arctic fossils yield resistant bacteria,” Medical Tribune, December 29, 1988, pp. 1, 23

 

Additionally this makes sense since most antibiotics, (and all of the original ones), were made from natural compounds meaning bacteria were already exposed to these compounds anyway.... Perhaps not in the concentrations of the purified form that is the finished product however this doesn't change the fact that the bacteria / fungi / anything are exposed to the majority of these compounds meaning resistance to them would be expected BEFORE the advent of antibiotics.

So the assumption evolutionists made in that resistance evolved from antibiotic use is simply wrong when reality is concerned.

 

 

 

Onto the topic at hand, definitions should generally be used from an official / verified source... Like a dictionary / encyclopedia. I have seen a worrying trend that atheists like to redefine words to however THEY want to use them. Mr Aron Ra has made a page on his blog redefining many words, most of which are incorrect when compared to a dictionary..

 

When asked why he needed to do such a thing, he said that dictionaries get it wrong sometimes, but then when asked what verification does he have that his definitions are correct he states that its based on the dictionary.... Anyone see the problem here?

 

Essentially he was cherry-picking parts of the dictionary he wanted to use and then claim the dictionary wrong with the parts he didn't like, I wonder what makes him the arbiter of truth in these matters? Or is this a typical case of a god complex?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the reason for their reaction is a category error in their method of thinking. Since everything in their worldview is based on dogma, then they assume that everyone else must use the same process they do for concluding their beliefs are facts.

 

They do not understand how science or rational inductive reasoning works. They understand a caricature of evolution; a strawman that is NOT what the theory actually is. Nor do they properly understand the nature of evidence.

 

They like to claim that evolutionists and creationists are simply 'interpreting the data differently.' Evidence can only support a single view, not both via different interpretations.

 

Interpretation is KEY and it seems that you do not understand that interpretation of evidence can lead to many different proposed theories on something.

 

Ultimately what you deem to be "logical" is a subjective assertion in that what you think is logical is based on your own worldview and values, and what seems logical to you, ergo different things will seem logical to different people as different people have different worldviews and values.. Therefore different interpretations are inevitable, that is if you understand some of the philosophy behind science.

 

For example,

 

It seems logical to me that the inter-dependency of cellular systems and how natural selection is claimed to operate makes evolution contradictory and illogical, however I am sure that you would claim the opposite...

 

Why are there these different viewpoints? Its due to different interpretations, which in turn is due to different worldviews and values.

 

Understand now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interpretation is KEY and it seems that you do not understand that interpretation of evidence can lead to many different proposed theories on something.

 

Ultimately what you deem to be "logical" is a subjective assertion in that what you think is logical is based on your own worldview and values, and what seems logical to you, ergo different things will seem logical to different people as different people have different worldviews and values.. Therefore different interpretations are inevitable, that is if you understand some of the philosophy behind science.

 

No, what is logical follows the rules of logic. It is not subjective.

 

For example,

 

It seems logical to me that the inter-dependency of cellular systems and how natural selection is claimed to operate makes evolution contradictory and illogical, however I am sure that you would claim the opposite...

 

That's because you do not understand the theory of evolution, you understand a caricature of it.

 

You also do not understand how to properly do science. Otherwise you would not claim that interpretation is key. If you understood how to properly do science you would state that DATA is key.

 

Why are there these different viewpoints? Its due to different interpretations, which in turn is due to different worldviews and values.

 

Understand now?

 

I understand much more than you think. Your worldview does not alter the world.

 

Do you concede that reality is what it is and there is a possibility that your worldview maps inaccurately?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. No, what is logical follows the rules of logic. It is not subjective.

 

 

2. That's because you do not understand the theory of evolution, you understand a caricature of it.

 

3. You also do not understand how to properly do science. Otherwise you would not claim that interpretation is key. If you understood how to properly do science you would state that DATA is key.

 

 

4. I understand much more than you think.

 

5. Your worldview does not alter the world.

 

6. Do you concede that reality is what it is and there is a possibility that your worldview maps inaccurately?

1. Sigh... You didn't read my post..

 

Ultimately what you deem to be "logical" is a subjective assertion in that what you think is logical is based on your own worldview and values, and what seems logical to you

 

When YOU claim something seems logical to YOU that simply is a subjective assertion. People argue about what they think is logical all the time, so essentially all of reality is my evidence for this, whereas all you have is your opinion.... (Now, who was it you said defies reality???)

 

 

2. Really... So you can read my mind... Great superpower, (almost as good as the one you have where your opinion becomes fact).

 

I've studied evolution at tertiary level, I think I do know what it is about. If you do find something wrong, perhaps you can point that specific thing out... Rather than make generalizations and then assume they are true.

 

3. Firstly my comment was not about science... I never said it was KEY to science.. ergo this is yet another of your strawmen. (as I have said a strawman is a logical fallacy... You really should stop making them lest you want to lose your intellectual creditability).

 

Secondly, yes DATA is key in science, however scientists are the ones who INTERPRET it, as the saying goes "science says nothing, scientists do", each theory / law / hypothesis / idea / etc have come from a scientist's INTERPRETATION of the DATA. Ergo you have demonstrated that you do not know the finer operations of science since you cannot comprehend that scientists make their own interpretation of the data they are presented with...

 

Seriously, if there was no interpretation then there would be no disputes over the interpretation of the data, and believe me there are TONS of disputes in scientific circles.

 

4. Could have fooled me lol ;)

 

5. I never said it did, (I don't claim my opinions as evidence / facts unlike you ;) ), so this is yet another strawman...

 

6. What am I conceding? What evidence have you given for such a concession?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Sigh... You didn't read my post..

 

Ultimately what you deem to be "logical" is a subjective assertion in that what you think is logical is based on your own worldview and values, and what seems logical to you

 

When YOU claim something seems logical to YOU that simply is a subjective assertion. People argue about what they think is logical all the time, so essentially all of reality is my evidence for this, whereas all you have is your opinion.... (Now, who was it you said defies reality???)

 

I admit, I did mis-read your post.

 

My point was that no matter wwhether I deem something logical or not, it is only logical if it does follow the rules of logic.

 

2. Really... So you can read my mind... Great superpower, (almost as good as the one you have where your opinion becomes fact).

I've studied evolution at tertiary level, I think I do know what it is about. If you do find something wrong, perhaps you can point that specific thing out... Rather than make generalizations and then assume they are true.

 

If you understood the actual thoery of evolution, you would not be a creationist. The fact you are a creationist is all the evidence I need that you do not properly understand evolution.

 

6. What am I conceding? What evidence have you given for such a concession?

 

Seriously, do you agree that reality is objective, or are you some kind of post-modernist?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. My point was that no matter wwhether I deem something logical or not, it is only logical if it does follow the rules of logic.

 

 

2. If you understood the actual thoery of evolution, you would not be a creationist. The fact you are a creationist is all the evidence I need that you do not properly understand evolution.

 

 

3. Seriously, do you agree that reality is objective, or are you some kind of post-modernist?

 

1. I never claimed anything against this so it is a moot (useless) point.

 

2. Perhaps it is you who doesn't understand. After I finish my work at the lab I'd be happy to demonstrate how evolution is nonsensical.

 

3. I never stated anything of the sort. I am merely asking what are you claiming I conceed to, and what were your arguments for such... I was trying to politely imply "where does this fit into the conversation", however perhaps I need to be a bit more blunt...

 

How does this fit into the conversation? I have made no claims remotely related to this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

gilbo, Do you agree that we live in an objective reality that does not change based on your opinions about it's nature? Do you agree there is a possibility that your opinions about the nature of reality may be incorrect?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course we live in an objective reality... it cannot be subjective since our opinions do not change reality, (hence why I tell you that your opinion is not evidence of anything, meaning you should have already known all this from that).

 

Of course opinions can be incorrect since they are subjective and are our own summations of what WE deem logical, as I told you what we think is logical is subjective and therefore is at risk of being wrong / biased... (Again you should have already known my answer based on what I have told you previously).

 

 

 

Now I ask you, do you believe that your opinions are subjective and in an objectiver reality are liable to be incorrect; and therefore shouldn't be used as evidence of anything, (despite you wanting it to be).... It seems that your previous claims on here defy the very question you are asking me.... That is worrying to say the least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now I ask you, do you believe that your opinions are subjective

 

I will agree to that.

 

and in an objectiver reality are liable to be incorrect;

 

But they can be checked for accuracy. Many opinions have been checked and found to be accurate and useful to accept. Those I have co-opted as my own opinions. Any opinions I generate independently I then check against reality and the proven accurate opinions available to me.

 

This gives me a world view based almost exclusively on opinions that have been tested against reality and found accurate. Thus I attempt to know as many things as possible as opposed to believing things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will agree to that.

 

 

But they can be checked for accuracy. Many opinions have been checked and found to be accurate and useful to accept. Those I have co-opted as my own opinions. Any opinions I generate independently I then check against reality and the proven accurate opinions available to me.

 

This gives me a world view based almost exclusively on opinions that have been tested against reality and found accurate. Thus I attempt to know as many things as possible as opposed to believing things.

 

When you "test" your opinions you realise that you are doing so subjectively meaning that it doesn't negate the problem.... This is why nobody sane takes opinions as evidence for anything.

 

Its ironic also that you keep refering to testing your claims / opinions yet continually refuse to give the evidence of such in other threads... How can you test something when you have no evidence to compare? Or is your definition of "test" in this circumstance merely your own subjective prognosis on what you deem "logical"... So essentially its your opinion that your opinions are logical and factual... Such a thing has no source of verification other than your opinion which is subjective... Essentially you are displaying the attributes of a god complex.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you "test" your opinions you realise that you are doing so subjectively meaning that it doesn't negate the problem.... This is why nobody sane takes opinions as evidence for anything.

 

Its ironic also that you keep refering to testing your claims / opinions yet continually refuse to give the evidence of such in other threads... How can you test something when you have no evidence to compare? Or is your definition of "test" in this circumstance merely your own subjective prognosis on what you deem "logical"... So essentially its your opinion that your opinions are logical and factual... Such a thing has no source of verification other than your opinion which is subjective... Essentially you are displaying the attributes of a god complex.

 

By test I mean compare against reality using the scientific method.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By test I mean compare against reality using the scientific method.

 

So as I have asked elsewhere, how do you test atheism?

 

Actually how can you test any belief via the scientific method since it requires EMPIRICAL EXPERIMENTATION.

 

Observation -> Hypothesis -> Experiment -> Result

This is the scientific method in a nutshell.

 

Now if you are to hold the belief that your son is a good son, how in the world can you do an experiment to prove that belief? Additionally what experiment can you do to prove what is "good"? These things are not scientific, so you cannot use the scientific method for them, I already demonstrated this to you with the list of things that science cannot prove... It seems you didn't listen to me there, (god complex?), lets hope you listen to me now.

 

You cannot, I repeat CANNOT impose the scientific method on things that are not scientific, ergo this leads me to believe that you throw the word "scientific method" around as a way to impose authority despite not knowing the finer points of its operation (as I already demonstrated to you before with the fact that scientists interpret data on another thread).

 

 

 

 

On the idea of opinions as evidence..

 

 

A god complex is an unshakable belief characterized by consistently inflated feelings of personal ability, privilege, or infallibility. A person with a god complex may refuse to admit the possibility of error or failure, even in the face of complex or intractable problems or difficult or impossible tasks, or may regard personal opinions as unquestionably correct.[1][2]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_complex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So as I have asked elsewhere, how do you test atheism?

 

Actually how can you test any belief via the scientific method since it requires EMPIRICAL EXPERIMENTATION.

 

Observation -> Hypothesis -> Experiment -> Result

This is the scientific method in a nutshell.

 

Now if you are to hold the belief that your son is a good son, how in the world can you do an experiment to prove that belief? Additionally what experiment can you do to prove what is "good"? These things are not scientific, so you cannot use the scientific method for them, I already demonstrated this to you with the list of things that science cannot prove... It seems you didn't listen to me there, (god complex?), lets hope you listen to me now.

 

What do you mean I didn't listen to you? I admitted there are some things (like what kind of music you like) that cannot be explained 100% through science. But it can say SOMETHING about it. While I may not be able to do the kind of experiment you imply, I can use science to derive some kind of empirical information and factor that into my decision processes, opinions, and beliefs.

 

You cannot, I repeat CANNOT impose the scientific method on things that are not scientific, ergo this leads me to believe that you throw the word "scientific method" around as a way to impose authority despite not knowing the finer points of its operation (as I already demonstrated to you before with the fact that scientists interpret data on another thread).

 

The basic issue is that we disagree on what is or is not subject to scientific investigation. Just because you can't think of a way to empirically test something does not mean that there is no way.

 

It may just be a failure of your imagination.

 

I prefer to AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE rely on empirical methods to form my beliefs, opinions and worldviews.

 

At NO POINT have I stated that science is the ONLY way to find truth. I have made the comment that I think it is the BEST way, based on it's proven record.

 

What part of what I am saying don't you understand?

 

On the idea of opinions as evidence..

 

 

A god complex is an unshakable belief characterized by consistently inflated feelings of personal ability, privilege, or infallibility. A person with a god complex may refuse to admit the possibility of error or failure, even in the face of complex or intractable problems or difficult or impossible tasks, or may regard personal opinions as unquestionably correct.[1][2]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_complex

 

When did I say that I cannot be mistaken about anything?

 

When have I said that my personal opinions are unquestionably correct? Based on what I know to be fact, I think my opinions are MOST LIKELY correct, but I am willing to revise them as new data becomes available.

 

Creationism, however, is 100% wrong. You reject data and evidence that demonstrates this. I can't dfo anything about that, and I am not going to waste my time presenting evidence you will rejcet. (You've rejected it once already, else you would not be a creationist.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I admitted there are some things (like what kind of music you like) that cannot be explained 100% through science.

 

Music doesn't exist. A very wise man once said:

 

"What's the difference between something that is 100% undetectable (through science) and something that does not exist?"

 

cool.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hehe.. not according to the wise man I was talking about. laugh.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clever. But you are committing a category error.

 

If you want I'll explain why, but I'll give you a chance to figure it out yourself first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms