The Devil’s Delusion

[koshergrl]

Essentially the argument has come down to this:

Anti-Christians believe that the only "faith" that is "faith" is that "faith" attached to religion.

They do not recognize "faith" in any other realm, including the realm of science.

Unfortunately, this doesn't work because if that were true, then nobody would ever need to prove any theory because just making the assumption that it's true would be considered "evidence" that it was true.

Somewhere, a scientist is laughing his ass off.

 

[koshergrl]

Please tell me how this isn't redundant idiocy:

"unambiguos fact of reality"

Idiocy is being practiced by the posturing idiot implying (without any thought or substantiation) that the phrase "unambiguous fact of reality" is necessarily "redundant idiocy."

Mendacious stupidity is clearly the only rhetorical device at her disposal.

PREDICTION: The Posturing Idiot will search the entire internet and post the one set of definitions that proves her assertion only in her delusional mind; while making the intellectually dishonest point of ignoring every other set of definitions or circumstances where facts might be ambiguous, or held only in ones imagination.
​

Please define "unambiguous fact of reality".

This should be good. I want to see how many meaningless words you can string together in place of one good word.

 

[LOki]

Essentially the argument has come down to this:

Anti-Christians believe that the only "faith" that is "faith" is that "faith" attached to religion.

They do not recognize "faith" in any other realm, including the realm of science.

Unfortunately, this doesn't work because if that were true, then nobody would ever need to prove any theory because just making the assumption that it's true would be considered "evidence" that it was true.

Somewhere, a scientist is laughing his ass off.

Idiot.

 

[LOki]

Please tell me how this isn't redundant idiocy:

"unambiguos fact of reality"

Idiocy is being practiced by the posturing idiot implying (without any thought or substantiation) that the phrase "unambiguous fact of reality" is necessarily "redundant idiocy."

Mendacious stupidity is clearly the only rhetorical device at her disposal.

PREDICTION: The Posturing Idiot will search the entire internet and post the one set of definitions that proves her assertion only in her delusional mind; while making the intellectually dishonest point of ignoring every other set of definitions or circumstances where facts might be ambiguous, or held only in ones imagination.
​

Please define "unambiguous fact of reality".

This should be good. I want to see how many meaningless words you can string together in place of one good word.

Posturing Idiot.

 

[koshergrl]

re·dun·dan·cy/riˈdəndənsē/


Noun:

• The state of being no longer needed or useful: "the redundancy of 19th-century heavy plant machinery".
• The use of words or data that could be omitted without loss of meaning or function; repetition or superfluity of information.

 

[G.T.]

Essentially the argument has come down to this:

Anti-Christians believe that the only "faith" that is "faith" is that "faith" attached to religion.

They do not recognize "faith" in any other realm, including the realm of science.

Unfortunately, this doesn't work because if that were true, then nobody would ever need to prove any theory because just making the assumption that it's true would be considered "evidence" that it was true.

Somewhere, a scientist is laughing his ass off.

that's the big difference. Science seeks to prove its theories. Religion remains hanging onto theirs by faith.

 

[koshergrl]

"
redundant

re·dun·dant

   adjective 1. characterized by verbosity or unnecessary repetition in expressing ideas; prolix: a redundant style.

2. being in excess; exceeding what is usual or natural: a redundant part."

Redundant | Define Redundant at Dictionary.com

EXAMPLE: "unambiguous fact of reality"

 

[koshergrl]

Essentially the argument has come down to this:

Anti-Christians believe that the only "faith" that is "faith" is that "faith" attached to religion.

They do not recognize "faith" in any other realm, including the realm of science.

Unfortunately, this doesn't work because if that were true, then nobody would ever need to prove any theory because just making the assumption that it's true would be considered "evidence" that it was true.

Somewhere, a scientist is laughing his ass off.

that's the big difference. Science seeks to prove its theories. Religion remains hanging onto theirs by faith.

That doesn't have any bearing on the fact that both start out with faith in a premise.

Then one seeks proof and the other doesn't. But it doesn't negate the fact that initially, both start with faith.

 

[SillyWabbit]

Essentially the argument has come down to this:

Anti-Christians believe that the only "faith" that is "faith" is that "faith" attached to religion.

They do not recognize "faith" in any other realm, including the realm of science.

Unfortunately, this doesn't work because if that were true, then nobody would ever need to prove any theory because just making the assumption that it's true would be considered "evidence" that it was true.

Somewhere, a scientist is laughing his ass off.

that's the big difference. Science seeks to prove its theories. Religion remains hanging onto theirs by faith.

Well, some see proof in a stain on the wall vaguely resembling the Jesus Christ.

 

[G.T.]

Essentially the argument has come down to this:

Anti-Christians believe that the only "faith" that is "faith" is that "faith" attached to religion.

They do not recognize "faith" in any other realm, including the realm of science.

Unfortunately, this doesn't work because if that were true, then nobody would ever need to prove any theory because just making the assumption that it's true would be considered "evidence" that it was true.

Somewhere, a scientist is laughing his ass off.

that's the big difference. Science seeks to prove its theories. Religion remains hanging onto theirs by faith.

That doesn't have any bearing on the fact that both start out with faith in a premise.

Then one seeks proof and the other doesn't. But it doesn't negate the fact that initially, both start with faith.

Initially, at the beginning of time.

After that - scientific theories are generally based in some manor of observable reality and studied from there for verification or debunking.

 

[G.T.]

Essentially the argument has come down to this:

Anti-Christians believe that the only "faith" that is "faith" is that "faith" attached to religion.

They do not recognize "faith" in any other realm, including the realm of science.

Unfortunately, this doesn't work because if that were true, then nobody would ever need to prove any theory because just making the assumption that it's true would be considered "evidence" that it was true.

Somewhere, a scientist is laughing his ass off.

that's the big difference. Science seeks to prove its theories. Religion remains hanging onto theirs by faith.

Well, some see proof in a stain on the wall vaguely resembling the Jesus Christ.

sillywabbit!

 

[koshergrl]

that's the big difference. Science seeks to prove its theories. Religion remains hanging onto theirs by faith.

That doesn't have any bearing on the fact that both start out with faith in a premise.

Then one seeks proof and the other doesn't. But it doesn't negate the fact that initially, both start with faith.

Initially, at the beginning of time.

After that - scientific theories are generally based in some manor of observable reality and studied from there for verification or debunking.

"Generally".

And scientific theories are booted into obscurity all the time, as more evidence is accrued that shows the "faith" in the existing evidence doesn't hold water.

It's all about faith.

 

[G.T.]

That doesn't have any bearing on the fact that both start out with faith in a premise.

Then one seeks proof and the other doesn't. But it doesn't negate the fact that initially, both start with faith.

Initially, at the beginning of time.

After that - scientific theories are generally based in some manor of observable reality and studied from there for verification or debunking.

"Generally".

And scientific theories are booted into obscurity all the time, as more evidence is accrued that shows the "faith" in the existing evidence doesn't hold water.

It's all about faith.

The "booting" shows you the fact that science accepts reality in the form of proof despite ego. If it's proven wrong, it's booted just as you said. Science is peer reviewed for a reason.

Anything in the bible proven wrong is written off as "oh it's just a parable," whereas if you start calling other key elements in the bible parables it's "oh that definitely really happened."

 

[edthecynic]

Weak, Beets...weak.



Is it true or not that light is conjectured to be both a wave and a particle?

Direct the witness to answer and stop adjusting his bowtie and shuffling in the witness box.

Two mutually inconsistent views....
...but I accept your right to have faith in this syncretic outlook.

What is true is that there are repeatable EXPERIMENTS that demonstrate that light can BEHAVE like both a wave and a particle. Experimentation is the exact opposite of faith. But as a know-it-all, you already knew that.

It's pretty clear why you don't want to answer the question.

Witness is excused.


Take Mini with you....

The question has been answered quite accurately. Repeatable experiments have demonstrated that light behaves as both a wave, such as interference, diffraction and polarization, and as a particle, such as the photoelectric effect.

Results of the experiments and not faith leads science to the wave/particle duality of light.

A good lawyer never asks a question they don't already know the answer to, but a know-it-all will.

 

[koshergrl]

Initially, at the beginning of time.

After that - scientific theories are generally based in some manor of observable reality and studied from there for verification or debunking.

"Generally".

And scientific theories are booted into obscurity all the time, as more evidence is accrued that shows the "faith" in the existing evidence doesn't hold water.

It's all about faith.

The "booting" shows you the fact that science accepts reality in the form of proof despite ego. If it's proven wrong, it's booted just as you said. Science is peer reviewed for a reason.

Anything in the bible proven wrong is written off as "oh it's just a parable," whereas if you start calling other key elements in the bible parables it's "oh that definitely really happened."

Nothing in the bible has been proven wrong.

That was easy.

 

[G.T.]

"Generally".

And scientific theories are booted into obscurity all the time, as more evidence is accrued that shows the "faith" in the existing evidence doesn't hold water.

It's all about faith.

The "booting" shows you the fact that science accepts reality in the form of proof despite ego. If it's proven wrong, it's booted just as you said. Science is peer reviewed for a reason.

Anything in the bible proven wrong is written off as "oh it's just a parable," whereas if you start calling other key elements in the bible parables it's "oh that definitely really happened."

Nothing in the bible has been proven wrong.

That was easy.

oh word?

The earth was made on God's third day....the sun and stars on the 4th. The sun is older than the earth.

the light was made on the first day - the sun and stars on the 4th (parable? or....just wrong?)

in Hebrews: …‘Almighty God created the Heavens and the Earth, and they will perish.’

book of Psalms, ‘The earth will abide forever.’









noah's ark???? lmao...really/>? What did the Carvivores eat?

 

[PoliticalChic]

What is true is that there are repeatable EXPERIMENTS that demonstrate that light can BEHAVE like both a wave and a particle. Experimentation is the exact opposite of faith. But as a know-it-all, you already knew that.

It's pretty clear why you don't want to answer the question.

Witness is excused.


Take Mini with you....

The question has been answered quite accurately. Repeatable experiments have demonstrated that light behaves as both a wave, such as interference, diffraction and polarization, and as a particle, such as the photoelectric effect.

Results of the experiments and not faith leads science to the wave/particle duality of light.

A good lawyer never asks a question they don't already know the answer to, but a know-it-all will.

It seems that you have nothing left but vituperation...
...understandable.

'Cause you're fibbing.

"Light is both like a wave and like a particle, this on the level of individual photons themselves! The wave, it seems can pass through two slits, as waves do…but to attest to a single particle may divide in the same way, requires…let’s call it an element of belief!"

"Wave–particle duality postulates that all particles exhibit both wave and particle properties. A central concept of quantum mechanics, this duality addresses the inability of classical concepts like "particle" and "wave" to fully describe the behavior of quantum-scale objects."
Wave


"...inability of classical concepts like "particle" and "wave" to fully describe..."

Simply put...the theory makes no sense...but you will continue to genuflect before the alter of quantum mechanics....because...

....get ready....

.....because you have faith.

Hey, would it be correct to call you the 'acolyte of astronomy'?
The 'reverend of research'?
How about 'the groupie of the Greenwich Observatory'??
The lap-dog of light theory?


Now, I know it's naughty of me to giggle at you like this, Beets....but, really, you deserve it.

 

[LOki]

re·dun·dan·cy/riˈdəndənsē/


Noun:

• The state of being no longer needed or useful: "the redundancy of 19th-century heavy plant machinery".
• The use of words or data that could be omitted without loss of meaning or function; repetition or superfluity of information.

"
redundant

re·dun·dant

   adjective 1. characterized by verbosity or unnecessary repetition in expressing ideas; prolix: a redundant style.

2. being in excess; exceeding what is usual or natural: a redundant part."

Redundant | Define Redundant at Dictionary.com

EXAMPLE: "unambiguous fact of reality"

PREDICTION: The Posturing Idiot will search the entire internet and post the one set of definitions that proves her assertion only in her delusional mind; while making the intellectually dishonest point of ignoring every other set of definitions or circumstances where facts might be ambiguous, or held only in ones imagination.​

Prediction validated.

 

[LOki]

"Generally".

And scientific theories are booted into obscurity all the time, as more evidence is accrued that shows the "faith" in the existing evidence doesn't hold water.

It's all about faith.

The "booting" shows you the fact that science accepts reality in the form of proof despite ego. If it's proven wrong, it's booted just as you said. Science is peer reviewed for a reason.

Anything in the bible proven wrong is written off as "oh it's just a parable," whereas if you start calling other key elements in the bible parables it's "oh that definitely really happened."

Nothing in the bible has been proven wrong.

That was easy.

Idiot.

 

[G.T.]

in the book of numbers it says that you can tell if a woman has committed adultery by having her drink cursed holy water, and if shes guilty her stomach will swell and her thighs will rot. are we standing behind this one too, or "parable?"