A great first step to ending Abortion!

[CFM]

Exactly, which is why government should pass strict gun control measures so our kids aren't shot while in school, or adults aren't shot while at work, or in church, or at a restaurant, or at synagogue, or at a yoga class, or at a video game tournament, or at a club, or at a bar, or at the movies, etc...

The government has passed laws saying it's illegal to do such things at schools, the workplace, church, restaurants, etc.

 

[CFM]

No. Look up the passage I cited. The Bible is a fairly important book, and you should at least begin to familiarize yourself with it.

Your version of it or what it actually teaches?

 

[Oneuli]

It is.

Incorrect.

Inversion Fallacy.

You're using that wrong. Read up on it.

Yes, it is.

Incorrect.

No, it's not. Agreeing upon (or debating) the meaning of key words is a necessary step, but appealing to a dictionary as the authoritative source of a word definition is not a necessary step

If you can think of a more authoritative source than a dictionary for a word definition, you're welcome to provide it. But you won't get very far merely bleating about someone else pointing to a dictionary to support the way she used a word.

No, I don't. A fallacy is an error of logic. That's all a fallacy is. It works much like a math error works...

Yet, as you know, you've failed to find any error in logic in what I've written. Instead, you've just been venting your emotions because I made points you can't think of a way to refute.

It might not be the same "thing", per se, but it most certainly is the same exact life...

Obviously not. Every life is different. If you want to argue that whatever it is that gives a quality to Life A also gives it to Life B, then you need to actually argue it, rather than just nakedly asserting they're the same.

It just happens to be at a different stage of life, like a caterpillar vs a butterfly

Yes, and stages can make a big difference. If I want to argue that caterpillars can fly, it's not enough to point out that they're just an earlier life stage of the same species as butterflies, which can fly. Similarly, if I want to argue that human fetuses have a right to life, it's not enough to point out they're the same species as born humans that have a right to life.

That different stage of life doesn't give someone the right to murder it.

Is this the point where I'm supposed to engage in some limp-dicked whining about the "loaded language" of calling it "murder," and to pretend that's a "logical fallacy." I suppose so. But I'll decline diving into that sewer with you. I'll instead just point out that it isn't murder if the thing doesn't have a right to life, which is the whole point we're debating.

Human life shouldn't only be sacred once it comes out of the womb

Why not?

it should be sacred throughout the whole process

Part of that process involves sperm and egg. Are we really going to do the "every sperm is sacred" song and dance? Or will you admit that merely being part of a process that results in a sacred thing does not make something sacred in itself?

Why do the born have a right to life?

Because they have a mind -- a capacity for structured thought and self awareness. Now, why do you think the unborn have a right to life (or at least whatever species of unborn you're willing to attribute that right to)?

Okay, so to put a timetable on it, would you be okay with applying that definition to a human as "at approximately 8 weeks after conception until birth...", since approx. 8 weeks is when the life begins looking very human-like in appearance?

I'm not fixated on any particular definition for it. If you'd like to set the definition to 8 weeks, that's fine.

Nope, that definition doesn't work.

It works perfectly well.

It is circular.

If you're struggling with the word "global" or the word "warming," I'd be happy to break those down for you, too. I'm not clear what your first language is, but I can attempt translations, since we clearly can't get far in English if you don't have that rudimentary vocabulary under your belt.

No, they are not "scientific ideas".

As you now see, they are, for the reasons I explained in detail.

Science is not "accumulated evidence". It is a set of falsifiable theories

The accumulation of evidence is the basis for forming theories. And the theories in this case are falsifiable, as I explained.

Science does not make use of supporting evidence; only conflicting evidence.

Incorrect. Look, I get it: you have zero scientific training, and it wasn't really your subject back in grade school. But go and talk to a real live scientist. You'll learn that supporting evidence is a crucial tool in the formation of hypotheses. As I've told you before, I could come up with any old bullshit assertion, but that doesn't make it a scientific hypothesis, much less a theory. For example, I could assert there is a magma civilization deep in the Earth's core, and that their factories are what cause the Earth's gravitational field to migrate. But that's not a scientific hypothesis, even though it's at least conceivably falsifiable. It's just a flight of fancy. There's no evidence to support it at all. By comparison, the theory of plate tectonics is scientific, because it's not just blind speculation. It is a way to explain a lot of accumulated evidence (interlocking shapes of continents, similar formations and fossils separated by oceans, etc.)

So your "accumulated evidence" can be falsified by "accumulated evidence"?

You misunderstood. Try rereading.

No, I didn't. A circular argument is defined as an argument which concludes with its initial predicate (in other words, to argue Y, therefore Y). Evolution does this....

It doesn't. Evolution is a theory designed to explain a bunch of evidence. And it's a theory that is conceivably falsifiable by way of discovering new evidence that fundamentally conflicts with the theory. For example, if, upon the discovery of DNA, we'd found that DNA patterns aren't consistent with the patterns we thought we saw for evolution, that would have blown up the theory (e.g., if there weren't signs of a progression of DNA changes in proto-humans over time, and signs of close similarities of DNA among primates). Instead, the evidence was consistent with the theory, boosting confidence that the theory is right.

Neither of those theories have been proven true (nor can they be).

Nothing can ever ultimately be proven true. For all you know, you're a brain in a jar being fed false information by a supercomputer, and every bit of evidence to the contrary is just part of the grand deception. How would you ever prove you aren't that brain in a jar? It can't be done. Similarly, we can never prove any scientific theory. But, there are plenty of conceivable pieces of emerging evidence that could convince scientists that the Big Bang Theory, or the theory of evolution by natural selection were wrong. They're falsifiable. The more evidence that accumulates that's consistent with those theories, without anything being found to falsify them, the more confident scientists become in the theories. That's how science works. In the case of those two particular theories, the religious know-nothings find them very troubling, since they conflict with lies their preachers told them. And so they want to apply an entirely different and impossible-to-achieve standard to them -- one they'd never apply to other areas of science. Global Warming is similar, though in that case it's less about it conflicting with religion, and more about it conflicting with the Religion of conservative American politics. Since laissez faire economics has no good answers for anthropogenic global warming, and laissez faire economics is the deepest faith of the American right, therefore AGW must be dismissed as a matter of faith.

No, ZERO science is based on past unobserved events

Nice try, but you won't slip that past me. The point isn't that the science is BASED on past unobserved events. It's based on present observed events -- for example, the present unearthing of an ancient fossil from the ground, the present comparison of sequenced DNA from various species, the present comparison of changes in species under natural selection pressure, the present distribution of species globally, and so on. Those present observed events are consistent with a theory that gives us an educated view about what past unobserved events were. And a huge amount of science takes that form. We didn't watch a mountain form, or even a particular tumor. Those are past unobserved events, about which we have educated theories.... theories that are falsifiable, if they're wrong. That's science.

Religions are what make use of supporting evidence

No. They absolutely don't. In fact, they revel in the capacity for their adherents to believe in the absence of supporting evidence. It's called faith.

We don't have access to functional time machines. We can't test that theory against the null hypothesis to falsify it. It is unfalsifiable.

You don't need a time machine to falsify such theories. There are all sorts of false theories about the past that have been falsified through new evidence, scientifically. For example, before radioactivity was understood, there was a theory that the Earth was much younger than it is, based on the idea that it couldn't be older than a certain age without having cooled completely. Then new evidence came in about the heat given off by radioactive elements as they decay over very long timelines, and it falsified the prior theory.

Precisely! That's precisely why your theory was a theory of religion rather than a theory of science...

Incorrect. My theories are falsifiable, which is what sets them apart from the mental error of religious thinking.

Yes, it is. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's ALL science is. It has nothing to do with supporting evidence.

I've already pointed out your error here repeatedly, and you've yet to address that argument at all. You just go back to nakedly asserting the same thing. Try grappling with the question of what distinguishes an actual scientific hypothesis from a flight of fancy.

This WAS a theory of science, but has since been falsified.

As you know, it hasn't.

A religion, not science. In fact, this theory outright rejects currently standing theories of science, such as the laws of thermodynamics and the stefan boltzmann law.

It definitely doesn't.

It also rejects logic and statistical mathematics.

Incorrect. There's a reason that virtually all experts are convinced as to the basics of the theory, and that there's a strong correlation between the level of expertise and the likelihood that someone is convinced. Global warming denialism is most common among those with only a high school education, because they simply haven't got the tools to grapple with the evidence.

Supporting evidence doesn't falsify theories.

Do you imagine someone said it does?

All of what you said here is just various examples of switching from one religion to a different religion based on the acceptance of a different set of supporting evidence.

It's nothing remotely of the sort. I favor scientific thinking. You favor religion and so you want to drag science down to its level. But science is about evidence and religion is about faith. They're polar opposites.

In order to be science, it would first have to be falsifiable.

And, as you now see, it is.

 

[Oneuli]

Your version of it or what it actually teaches?

The whole book is important, as a cultural artifact, if nothing else. As for what it "actually teaches," that's often a point of contention. But, in the case of the verse I cited, it's pretty clear. It was funny to see a holy roller so ignorant of the Bible that he didn't realize he'd just done something that Jesus said put him in danger of the fire of hell.

If the Bible were true, it would be fascinating to observe that moment, after death, when the vast majority of religious conservatives realized they were going to burn in Hell forever because they'd chosen to ignore the clear moral instructions of Jesus, despite having pretended to regard him as their savior.

 

[rjhenn]

It is a word you use to keep yourself from feeling shame, for your support of a barbaric practice!

It's a word used to point out your abysmal ignorance.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[rjhenn]

It is the very best way to prevent it.


It never fails.


Yes, they will. That is not practicing abstinence.


Once you have sex, you are no longer practicing abstinence.


Correct. Many decide to have sex. They typically don't think about the consequences nor responsibilities until "whoopie, I'm pregnant"...

Which is why abstinence, as a policy, doesn't work.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[rjhenn]

Again, I did NOT say theism... I said religion... Theism is only a small sect of what religion entails...


You've proven this? Or is this your belief?

When is the last time that any god spoke to you, outside of your delusions. There's no evidence that any god exists. If there really was an omnipotent Being, it would be simplicity itself for Him to demonstrate His existence. Yet He's never done so. All we've ever seen are desperate attempts by believers to make us think that He's done so.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[rjhenn]

Okay... Let's start with yours, then... Is that alright?


It does.


Quote a passage which does this.


Quote a passage which does this.

You appear to be deliberately ignorant. I am a real person, with rights. A fetus is not a person, and has no rights.
Then there's Exodus 21:22 and Numbers 5.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[rjhenn]

Inversion Fallacy. That's what YOU are doing, not me.

I have provided the text and explained it...

You didn't "explain it". You gave your biased misinterpretation of it. "Judicial power" means that they have the power to interpret.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[PostmodernProphet]

No. Look up the passage I cited. The Bible is a fairly important book, and you should at least begin to familiarize yourself with it.

the passages I referred to are more relevant to the argument....

 

[PostmodernProphet]

he'd just done something that Jesus said put him in danger of the fire of hell.

I take it you are unfamiliar with the role of prophets in the scriptures.....we are specifically charged with the responsibility of calling out the cunts of society.....

 

[gfm7175]

Incorrect.

It is.

You're using that wrong. Read up on it.

No, I'm not. An Inversion Fallacy is, in other words, projection. It stems from the contextomy fallacy. It attempts to take context from one person and incorrectly shift it onto another as if it was their own.

Incorrect.

No, it was correct.

If you can think of a more authoritative source than a dictionary for a word definition, you're welcome to provide it.

People. People are who define words; not dictionaries. Some words are defined by philosophy, others by science, others by engineering, others by logic, etc. etc...

But you won't get very far merely bleating about someone else pointing to a dictionary to support the way she used a word.

It's fine to make use of a dictionary definition, so long as it is a sound definition. I might suggest a more sound definition, however, depending upon the word in question... On the other hand, it is not fine to appeal to a dictionary definition as if it is the ultimate authority of a word definition. That is a prime example of the Appeal to False Authority Fallacy.

Yet, as you know, you've failed to find any error in logic in what I've written.

I've found numerous. I've mentioned a few of them, and not mentioned a few others...

Instead, you've just been venting your emotions because I made points you can't think of a way to refute.

I've directly responded to everything you've said line by line, which is in line with my style of responding...

Obviously not.

Yes, it IS the same exact life. Once conception begins, that "lump of cells" or whatever you prefer to call it at that point (barring any natural events such as miscarriages) ALWAYS results in a human baby being born after approx. 9 months... 100% of the time...

Every life is different.

Yup, even between you and me.. We are all unique creatures...

If you want to argue that whatever it is that gives a quality to Life A also gives it to Life B, then you need to actually argue it, rather than just nakedly asserting they're the same.

Even among the same species, such as humans, qualities differ by individuals. Nobody is the same. But, as humans, we all have the natural and inherent right to self defense (survival). We all have the natural and inherent right to life. That right was not given to us by any form of Earthly government; it is natural and inherent. I believe God is the source of that right to life, as I believe that he is the one who provided it to begin with, but others who don't believe in God could instead view it as nature or Mother Earth or something else...

Yes, and stages can make a big difference. If I want to argue that caterpillars can fly, it's not enough to point out that they're just an earlier life stage of the same species as butterflies, which can fly. Similarly, if I want to argue that human fetuses have a right to life, it's not enough to point out they're the same species as born humans that have a right to life.

I'd say that a right is much different than a physical trait or an ability, though... The debate is at what moment does a person become a person. I say that it happens at the very moment of conception, while you seem to think that it doesn't happen until birth. So, you're arguing that a fully formed baby (or fetus, or whatever word you wanna use) is NOT a person until it is born. You are arguing that the location of the child affects its person-hood... There's much more to a person being a person than their location...

Is this the point where I'm supposed to engage in some limp-dicked whining about the "loaded language" of calling it "murder," and to pretend that's a "logical fallacy." I suppose so. But I'll decline diving into that sewer with you. I'll instead just point out that it isn't murder if the thing doesn't have a right to life, which is the whole point we're debating.

It's murder, though... Not by the legal definition of it, but it is still the wrongful termination of life.

Why not?

Because we are all God's children. He carefully gave us life, so we should carefully be fruitful with that life. We shouldn't be creating it and then aborting it at will. We should value it as we do our own.

Part of that process involves sperm and egg. Are we really going to do the "every sperm is sacred" song and dance?

Nope. Not every sperm is sacred... Only the one which wins the race and initiates conception...

Or will you admit that merely being part of a process that results in a sacred thing does not make something sacred in itself?

That's true... one can't automatically deduce that a part of a whole is sacred from the truth that the whole is sacred...

Because they have a mind -- a capacity for structured thought and self awareness.

Fetuses have a mind, too.

Now, why do you think the unborn have a right to life (or at least whatever species of unborn you're willing to attribute that right to)?

It gets attributed to humanity because humanity was created in the image of God. The unborn have a right to life because they also have minds... They have them since conception.

I'm not fixated on any particular definition for it. If you'd like to set the definition to 8 weeks, that's fine.

Okay, I'm fine with that.

It works perfectly well.

No, it doesn't. Circular definitions are meaningless. In order for a definition to hold meaning, it must reference something outside of itself. Defining a "cell phone" as "a phone that is cellular" is useless... it doesn't provide any additional information outside of itself. Instead, defining it as "a phone without a physical connection to a network" works, because it makes reference to something outside of itself, aka the physical connection to a network. It distinguishes it from landline phones, which do have physical connections to networks.

To define global warming as "warming of a globe", it makes no reference outside of itself. It is useless to someone trying to understand what it is that you are talking about. It has the same problem that defining "cell phone" as "phone that is cellular" has, especially to someone who is unfamiliar with cell phones.

If you're struggling with the word "global" or the word "warming," I'd be happy to break those down for you, too. I'm not clear what your first language is, but I can attempt translations, since we clearly can't get far in English if you don't have that rudimentary vocabulary under your belt.

If you are asserting that the Earth as a whole is increasing in temperature, I understand what you are asserting. However, it is impossible to measure the absolute temperature of the Earth as a whole. Both science and statistical mathematics tell us this...

As you now see, they are, for the reasons I explained in detail.

No, they aren't. Science isn't "ideas"... It is a set of falsifiable theories...

The accumulation of evidence is the basis for forming theories.

I don't need any evidence to form a theory. I will form one right now without any evidence. Cardinals will always chirp four times after two high pitched calls whenever they are next to a female cardinal. BAM, there you go. Theory formed... A null hypothesis could be that my theory would be falsified if one chirps in any different pattern while next to a female.

And the theories in this case are falsifiable, as I explained.

No, they are not, as I have explained.

Incorrect. Look, I get it: you have zero scientific training,

You have no clue what my training is.

and it wasn't really your subject back in grade school.

I got straight A's in it... It was probably my 2nd best subject, right behind mathematics and probably barely ahead of history.

But go and talk to a real live scientist.

True Scotsman Fallacy. Appeal to False Authority Fallacy. A scientist is not science. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

You'll learn that supporting evidence is a crucial tool in the formation of hypotheses.

No, it's not. None is necessary. Supporting evidence is used in religion, not science. Potential CONFLICTING evidence is what is important. A null hypothesis is attempting to falsify the theory in question. It is looking to destroy the theory.

As I've told you before, I could come up with any old bullshit assertion, but that doesn't make it a scientific hypothesis, much less a theory.

A theory is not a "sanctified hypothesis"... A theory is an explanatory argument. That's all a theory is.

For example, I could assert there is a magma civilization deep in the Earth's core, and that their factories are what cause the Earth's gravitational field to migrate.

Yes, you could.

But that's not a scientific hypothesis,

Correct. What you have provided is, instead, a theory. See how easy it was to come up with a theory, and see how it didn't even require any supporting evidence to formulate?

even though it's at least conceivably falsifiable.

How would you attempt to falsify that theory?

It's just a flight of fancy. There's no evidence to support it at all.

Argument From Ignorance Fallacy.

Remember, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence... evidence is not a proof.

By comparison, the theory of plate tectonics is scientific, because it's not just blind speculation.

It is only part of science if it is falsifiable, and continues to survive null hypothesis testing...

It is a way to explain a lot of accumulated evidence (interlocking shapes of continents, similar formations and fossils separated by oceans, etc.)

That would be how one strengthens one's religious belief in the theory of plate tectonics... That has nothing to do with science... That is the same way that I piece evidences together to strengthen my religious belief in Christianity (that Jesus Christ exists and is who he says he is).

You misunderstood. Try rereading.

No, I didn't.

It doesn't. Evolution is a theory designed to explain a bunch of evidence.

Redundant. A theory is an explanatory argument. Evolution attempts to explain the state of current life forms (that they evolved from lesser life forms over millions of years). It is unfalsifiable. It is a religious belief. Supporting evidence is used in RELIGION, not in science...

And it's a theory that is conceivably falsifiable by way of discovering new evidence that fundamentally conflicts with the theory.

That's not falsifying, though... That's merely replacing one religious belief with another religious belief due to your newfound acceptance of different evidence. The best you can determine by doing that is that the two religious beliefs contradict each other, so you then know that if one is true, the other is false. In other words, you would not be rejecting your original belief because it has been falsified, but rather you'd be rejecting it because it contradicts your new religion.

For example, if, upon the discovery of DNA, we'd found that DNA patterns aren't consistent with the patterns we thought we saw for evolution, that would have blown up the theory (e.g., if there weren't signs of a progression of DNA changes in proto-humans over time, and signs of close similarities of DNA among primates). Instead, the evidence was consistent with the theory, boosting confidence that the theory is right.

Supporting evidence doesn't further legitimize any theory of science. Science only concerns itself with conflicting evidence...

Nothing can ever ultimately be proven true.

False. Any closed functional system, such as logic and mathematics, makes use of proofs. 2+2=4 is PROVEN to be true. It is an extension of the foundational axioms of mathematics. It is definitely true.

For all you know, you're a brain in a jar being fed false information by a supercomputer, and every bit of evidence to the contrary is just part of the grand deception.

Yup, I could be.

How would you ever prove you aren't that brain in a jar? It can't be done.

Correct.

Similarly, we can never prove any scientific theory.

Correct. Science does not make use of proofs, as it is an open functional system, as opposed to logic and mathematics, which are closed functional systems (operating under foundational axioms).

But, there are plenty of conceivable pieces of emerging evidence that could convince scientists that the Big Bang Theory, or the theory of evolution by natural selection were wrong.

Correct. They could change their beliefs regarding those things, due to different evidence or different views of the same evidence. BUT those theories can't be falsified (except for natural selection, which already has been falsified)...

They're falsifiable.

Nope. Only natural selection is falsifiable, and has been falsified.

The more evidence that accumulates that's consistent with those theories, without anything being found to falsify them, the more confident scientists become in the theories.

Incorrect.

That's how science works.

Nope, that's how RELIGION works... Also, you can't falsify unfalsifiable theories. You can only make use of supporting evidence in those cases...

In the case of those two particular theories, the religious know-nothings

Bigotry. I am not interested in your hateful bigotry, Oneuli...

find them very troubling,

I don't find those theories to be troubling at all... In fact, I, as a Christian, accept the theory of evolution as true. I am agnostic with regard to the Big Bang Theory.

since they conflict with lies their preachers told them.

Theistic people who rejects those theories for that reasoning are fundamentalists of their Theistic religions... They are committing numerous fallacies by rejecting those theories by that particular reasoning...

And so they want to apply an entirely different and impossible-to-achieve standard to them -- one they'd never apply to other areas of science.

The same standard applies to them... Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's all science is. Those theories (outside of natural selection) are not falsifiable, therefore they are not science.

Global Warming is similar, though in that case it's less about it conflicting with religion, and more about it conflicting with the Religion of conservative American politics.

Global Warming rejects logic, science, and statistical mathematics. I could go through each one in detail if you would like...

Since laissez faire economics has no good answers for anthropogenic global warming,

We don't even know if it is happening... We have no way of accurately measuring absolute global temperature...

and laissez faire economics is the deepest faith of the American right, therefore AGW must be dismissed as a matter of faith.

AGW is ACCEPTED as a matter of faith... It is rejected on the basis of it rejecting logic, science, and statistical mathematics...

Nice try, but you won't slip that past me. The point isn't that the science is BASED on past unobserved events. It's based on present observed events -- for example, the present unearthing of an ancient fossil from the ground, the present comparison of sequenced DNA from various species, the present comparison of changes in species under natural selection pressure, the present distribution of species globally, and so on. Those present observed events are consistent with a theory that gives us an educated view about what past unobserved events were. And a huge amount of science takes that form. We didn't watch a mountain form, or even a particular tumor. Those are past unobserved events, about which we have educated theories.... theories that are falsifiable, if they're wrong. That's science.

Science is not religion. It is a set of falsifiable theories.

No. They absolutely don't. In fact, they revel in the capacity for their adherents to believe in the absence of supporting evidence. It's called faith.

Argument From Ignorance Fallacy.

Faith is circular reasoning. That's all faith is. Faith has nothing to do with the presence or absence of evidence...

You don't need a time machine to falsify such theories. There are all sorts of false theories about the past that have been falsified through new evidence, scientifically. For example, before radioactivity was understood, there was a theory that the Earth was much younger than it is, based on the idea that it couldn't be older than a certain age without having cooled completely. Then new evidence came in about the heat given off by radioactive elements as they decay over very long timelines, and it falsified the prior theory.

Already refuted this type of reasoning. See above.

Incorrect. My theories are falsifiable, which is what sets them apart from the mental error of religious thinking.

Already refuted... See above.

I've already pointed out your error here repeatedly, and you've yet to address that argument at all.

I've directly addressed it multiple times, yet you keep repeating your same mantra that is does make use of it somehow. I have shown you how and why you are actually describing religion as opposed to science.

You just go back to nakedly asserting the same thing.

Inversion Fallacy. YOU are the one doing this...

Try grappling with the question of what distinguishes an actual scientific hypothesis from a flight of fancy.

I already have...

As you know, it hasn't.

Yes, it has been falsified.

It definitely doesn't.

Yes, it does. I can go through each one if you'd like...

Incorrect. There's a reason that virtually all experts are convinced as to the basics of the theory, and that there's a strong correlation between the level of expertise and the likelihood that someone is convinced. Global warming denialism is most common among those with only a high school education, because they simply haven't got the tools to grapple with the evidence.

Evidence is not a proof. We've been through this. Again, I can go through each reason specifically as to why AGW is a load of garbage...

Do you imagine someone said it does?

That's what YOU'VE been arguing THIS WHOLE TIME... Now you're denying your own argumentation... You said that "new" supporting evidence can falsify "old" supporting evidence (not those exact words, but I'm not going to look up exactly how you phrased it).

It's nothing remotely of the sort. I favor scientific thinking.

No, you don't. You keep describing religion as if it was science...

You favor religion and so you want to drag science down to its level.

I am a strong supporter of both of them.

But science is about evidence

No, it isn't. It is about falsifiable theories.

and religion is about faith.

Yes... it is about unfalsifiable theories. All religious are based upon an initial circular argument, and circular reasoning is just another way of saying faith.

They're polar opposites.

Correct. In a general sense, one deals with the falsifiable and the other deals with the unfalsifiable...

And, as you now see, it is.

No, it isn't.

 

[rjhenn]

It is.


No, I'm not. An Inversion Fallacy is, in other words, projection. It stems from the contextomy fallacy. It attempts to take context from one person and incorrectly shift it onto another as if it was their own.


No, it was correct.


People. People are who define words; not dictionaries. Some words are defined by philosophy, others by science, others by engineering, others by logic, etc. etc...


It's fine to make use of a dictionary definition, so long as it is a sound definition. I might suggest a more sound definition, however, depending upon the word in question... On the other hand, it is not fine to appeal to a dictionary definition as if it is the ultimate authority of a word definition. That is a prime example of the Appeal to False Authority Fallacy.


I've found numerous. I've mentioned a few of them, and not mentioned a few others...


I've directly responded to everything you've said line by line, which is in line with my style of responding...


Yes, it IS the same exact life. Once conception begins, that "lump of cells" or whatever you prefer to call it at that point (barring any natural events such as miscarriages) ALWAYS results in a human baby being born after approx. 9 months... 100% of the time...


Yup, even between you and me.. We are all unique creatures...


Even among the same species, such as humans, qualities differ by individuals. Nobody is the same. But, as humans, we all have the natural and inherent right to self defense (survival). We all have the natural and inherent right to life. That right was not given to us by any form of Earthly government; it is natural and inherent. I believe God is the source of that right to life, as I believe that he is the one who provided it to begin with, but others who don't believe in God could instead view it as nature or Mother Earth or something else...


I'd say that a right is much different than a physical trait or an ability, though... The debate is at what moment does a person become a person. I say that it happens at the very moment of conception, while you seem to think that it doesn't happen until birth. So, you're arguing that a fully formed baby (or fetus, or whatever word you wanna use) is NOT a person until it is born. You are arguing that the location of the child affects its person-hood... There's much more to a person being a person than their location...


It's murder, though... Not by the legal definition of it, but it is still the wrongful termination of life.


Because we are all God's children. He carefully gave us life, so we should carefully be fruitful with that life. We shouldn't be creating it and then aborting it at will. We should value it as we do our own.


Nope. Not every sperm is sacred... Only the one which wins the race and initiates conception...


That's true... one can't automatically deduce that a part of a whole is sacred from the truth that the whole is sacred...


Fetuses have a mind, too.


It gets attributed to humanity because humanity was created in the image of God. The unborn have a right to life because they also have minds... They have them since conception.


Okay, I'm fine with that.


No, it doesn't. Circular definitions are meaningless. In order for a definition to hold meaning, it must reference something outside of itself. Defining a "cell phone" as "a phone that is cellular" is useless... it doesn't provide any additional information outside of itself. Instead, defining it as "a phone without a physical connection to a network" works, because it makes reference to something outside of itself, aka the physical connection to a network. It distinguishes it from landline phones, which do have physical connections to networks.

To define global warming as "warming of a globe", it makes no reference outside of itself. It is useless to someone trying to understand what it is that you are talking about. It has the same problem that defining "cell phone" as "phone that is cellular" has, especially to someone who is unfamiliar with cell phones.


If you are asserting that the Earth as a whole is increasing in temperature, I understand what you are asserting. However, it is impossible to measure the absolute temperature of the Earth as a whole. Both science and statistical mathematics tell us this...


No, they aren't. Science isn't "ideas"... It is a set of falsifiable theories...


I don't need any evidence to form a theory. I will form one right now without any evidence. Cardinals will always chirp four times after two high pitched calls whenever they are next to a female cardinal. BAM, there you go. Theory formed... A null hypothesis could be that my theory would be falsified if one chirps in any different pattern while next to a female.


No, they are not, as I have explained.


You have no clue what my training is.


I got straight A's in it... It was probably my 2nd best subject, right behind mathematics and probably barely ahead of history.


True Scotsman Fallacy. Appeal to False Authority Fallacy. A scientist is not science. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.


No, it's not. None is necessary. Supporting evidence is used in religion, not science. Potential CONFLICTING evidence is what is important. A null hypothesis is attempting to falsify the theory in question. It is looking to destroy the theory.


A theory is not a "sanctified hypothesis"... A theory is an explanatory argument. That's all a theory is.


Yes, you could.


Correct. What you have provided is, instead, a theory. See how easy it was to come up with a theory, and see how it didn't even require any supporting evidence to formulate?


How would you attempt to falsify that theory?


Argument From Ignorance Fallacy.

Remember, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence... evidence is not a proof.


It is only part of science if it is falsifiable, and continues to survive null hypothesis testing...


That would be how one strengthens one's religious belief in the theory of plate tectonics... That has nothing to do with science... That is the same way that I piece evidences together to strengthen my religious belief in Christianity (that Jesus Christ exists and is who he says he is).


No, I didn't.


Redundant. A theory is an explanatory argument. Evolution attempts to explain the state of current life forms (that they evolved from lesser life forms over millions of years). It is unfalsifiable. It is a religious belief. Supporting evidence is used in RELIGION, not in science...


That's not falsifying, though... That's merely replacing one religious belief with another religious belief due to your newfound acceptance of different evidence. The best you can determine by doing that is that the two religious beliefs contradict each other, so you then know that if one is true, the other is false. In other words, you would not be rejecting your original belief because it has been falsified, but rather you'd be rejecting it because it contradicts your new religion.


Supporting evidence doesn't further legitimize any theory of science. Science only concerns itself with conflicting evidence...


False. Any closed functional system, such as logic and mathematics, makes use of proofs. 2+2=4 is PROVEN to be true. It is an extension of the foundational axioms of mathematics. It is definitely true.


Yup, I could be.


Correct.


Correct. Science does not make use of proofs, as it is an open functional system, as opposed to logic and mathematics, which are closed functional systems (operating under foundational axioms).


Correct. They could change their beliefs regarding those things, due to different evidence or different views of the same evidence. BUT those theories can't be falsified (except for natural selection, which already has been falsified)...


Nope. Only natural selection is falsifiable, and has been falsified.


Incorrect.


Nope, that's how RELIGION works... Also, you can't falsify unfalsifiable theories. You can only make use of supporting evidence in those cases...


Bigotry. I am not interested in your hateful bigotry, Oneuli...


I don't find those theories to be troubling at all... In fact, I, as a Christian, accept the theory of evolution as true. I am agnostic with regard to the Big Bang Theory.


Theistic people who rejects those theories for that reasoning are fundamentalists of their Theistic religions... They are committing numerous fallacies by rejecting those theories by that particular reasoning...


The same standard applies to them... Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's all science is. Those theories (outside of natural selection) are not falsifiable, therefore they are not science.


Global Warming rejects logic, science, and statistical mathematics. I could go through each one in detail if you would like...


We don't even know if it is happening... We have no way of accurately measuring absolute global temperature...


AGW is ACCEPTED as a matter of faith... It is rejected on the basis of it rejecting logic, science, and statistical mathematics...


Science is not religion. It is a set of falsifiable theories.


Argument From Ignorance Fallacy.

Faith is circular reasoning. That's all faith is. Faith has nothing to do with the presence or absence of evidence...


Already refuted this type of reasoning. See above.


Already refuted... See above.


I've directly addressed it multiple times, yet you keep repeating your same mantra that is does make use of it somehow. I have shown you how and why you are actually describing religion as opposed to science.


Inversion Fallacy. YOU are the one doing this...


I already have...


Yes, it has been falsified.


Yes, it does. I can go through each one if you'd like...


Evidence is not a proof. We've been through this. Again, I can go through each reason specifically as to why AGW is a load of garbage...


That's what YOU'VE been arguing THIS WHOLE TIME... Now you're denying your own argumentation... You said that "new" supporting evidence can falsify "old" supporting evidence (not those exact words, but I'm not going to look up exactly how you phrased it).


No, you don't. You keep describing religion as if it was science...


I am a strong supporter of both of them.


No, it isn't. It is about falsifiable theories.


Yes... it is about unfalsifiable theories. All religious are based upon an initial circular argument, and circular reasoning is just another way of saying faith.


Correct. In a general sense, one deals with the falsifiable and the other deals with the unfalsifiable...


No, it isn't.

Despite your claims to the contrary, a fundamental characteristic of religion is that it pays no attention to facts or evidence. It depends entirely on mindless faith.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[Oneuli]

the passages I referred to are more relevant to the argument....

The passage I cited was directly relevant to your statement. It couldn't have been more of an explicit response to what you said. Have you looked it up yet?

 

[Oneuli]

I take it you are unfamiliar with the role of prophets in the scriptures

You take it incorrectly. The issue here is your complete lack of knowledge of the Bible. Look up the passage I provided. What are you doing to repent for your sin? Or do you think Jesus was wrong about the hell fire you're risking?

 

[PostmodernProphet]

You take it incorrectly. The issue here is your complete lack of knowledge of the Bible. Look up the passage I provided. What are you doing to repent for your sin? Or do you think Jesus was wrong about the hell fire you're risking?

I don't think Jesus is wrong.......but I know you are.......

 

[Micawber]

Fund planned parenthood

 

[Guno צְבִי]

I take it you are unfamiliar with the role of prophets in the scriptures.....we are specifically charged with the responsibility of calling out the cunts of society.....

The Torah and tanakh has nothing to do with you goyim

 

[PostmodernProphet]

The Torah and tanakh has nothing to do with you goyim

he says you are wrong.....
Jeremiah 32:26 Then the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah: 27 “I am the Lord, the God of all mankind.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

The Torah and tanakh has nothing to do with you goyim

Don't you think it's amusing though how some Xtians use that verse in Leviticus to condemn homosexuality -- and the ppl who are gay -- yet disregard all the other prohibitions in that chapter?