It pays attention to both, actually... I think you are operating under much different definitions that I am for those words.
Religion is NOT theism, although theism is a part of what religion entails. Religion is best defined as "an initial circular argument with other arguments stemming from it". A circular argument (ie, "circular reasoning") is best defined as "an argument which concludes with its initial predicate".
A fact is an assumed predicate. That's all a fact is. Facts are meant to speed up conversation, as arguments don't have to be formed about a predicate which is already agreed upon.
Evidence is "any statement which supports an argument". Thus evidence is, essentially, a predicate.
Hopefully those definitions make it clearer as to the logic behind how those things all relate to each other...
Faith is not mindless. It requires a mind to formulate it and to accept/reject it.
Faith is simply another word for circular reasoning, as I have defined above.
Your belief that no god(s) exist is dependent entirely upon "mindless" faith... It is a religious belief. You criticize precisely what you YOURSELF are doing...
Yes, we are talking about a single life.
Correct, their qualities at one time are different than their qualities at another time, but the life itself is one in the same.
Your life right now is the exact same life that was inside your mother's womb starting at conception. You were once that little zygote, that little fetus, etc. etc... It's the same life, just at a different point in development (like how a butterfly is that same caterpillar, just in a different stage of development). I'm curious as to why you value human life at certain stages of development over other stages... Why do you value human life as an adult, as a teenager, as a pre-teenager, as a child, as a toddler, as an infant, but NOT as a fetus, embryo, or a zygote? It's all part of the same process; it's all the same exact life...
I'm not saying they are the same in appearance/etc... I'm saying that they are the same life force... If a human life is special at the infant stage, why not at the fetus stage?
It all comes down to people wanting the pleasure of sex without wanting the responsibility of raising children... It's morally abhorrent...
And those things all have the same mind you speak of, just at a different stage of development...
The very moment that the man's sperm and the woman's egg join together.
We don't have near enough instrumentation (and neither is it uniformly spaced and simultaneously read) to accurately accomplish this...
Argument From RandU Fallacy... random numbers are not data.
We do not use fossils for fuel. They do not burn very well. We DO make use of various carbon based fuels, however...
Actually, it does. It starts with a theory, that theory gets tested against a null hypothesis, and then ends with that theory becoming (and remaining) a theory of science so long as it continues to withstand null hypothesis testing...
False Authority appeal to Merriam Webster ignored on sight. The word 'theory' doesn't change in meaning because of science. It holds the same meaning of "an explanatory argument".
False Dichotomy Fallacy.
Yes, it was. You were appealing to purity.
Under that definition, Atheism is a religion. Correct? If not, then define "evidence"...
Yes, there is... Apparently you operate under a MUCH different definition of evidence than I do... The Bible is evidence of such a notion... So is life itself. So is the vast number of Christians across the world. So is the vast number of theistic religions... I could go on and on, but the point has been made.
No... The initial circular argument that "Jesus Christ exists and is who he says he is" is what makes it a religion...
Nope, it can't be approached by science. It must be accepted/rejected on a faith basis.
Because it is arguing a paradox. Natural Selection argues that an organism exists because it is best suited to exist out of the variety available. However, why DOES the variety exist? Natural Selection would tend to REDUCE variety, not increase it... The logical conclusion of the natural selection theory would be a single organism (the "perfect selection"), unable to produce any variety at all. In essence, it reduces the very differences it itself needs to select from...
The other falsification is the existence of traits in various animals which do not help those animals survive, such as albino varieties. Since those varieties exist, the theory of natural selection is falsified, as it only takes one example of such a trait to falsify the theory.
Yes, it WAS bigoted. Bigotry is an error of logic. It is the Compositional Error Fallacy, but involving people as the class. Racism would be bigotry which involves a genetic trait as the property, such as skin color... People seem to think that bigotry involves intolerance... It need not involve ANY intolerance...
Science is NOT a method. It is a set of falsifiable theories.
Random numbers dismissed on sight...
No, it is rejected because it rejects logic, science, and mathematics.
LOGIC: it rejects logic because it is argumentation based on a circularly-defined buzzword. Circular definitions do not work; they are meaningless. Any argumentation based upon them result in void arguments.
SCIENCE: It rejects the laws of thermodynamics and the stefan boltzmann law. AGW attempts to make heat flow backwards, rejecting the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Heat ONLY flows from hot to cold, NOT from cold to hot. A colder CO2 molecule can NOT heat a warmer surface. AGW also attempts to simultaneously reduce radiance of Earth AND increase temperature of Earth. This rejects the stefan boltzmann law, which states that radiance and temperature are directly proportional. AGW also attempts to reduce entropy, which violates thermodynamics... Entropy can only increase or stay the same in an isolated system; it cannot be reduced.
MATHEMATICS: It rejects mathematics because it thinks that global temperature can be accurately measured. NASA makes use of around 7,500 thermometers, so I will use that number here. Let's also, for argument's sake, say that those thermometers are uniformly spaced and simultaneously read (they are NOT). Now, Earth has an area of around 197 million sq miles, so that would mean one thermometer per approx. 26,266 miles, or an area around the size of West Virginia. Can the temperature of West Virginia be accurately read with a single thermometer? I don't think so... Why is that? Well, that is because of the range and variance of temperature... Temperature is known to have a range of approx. 262 deg F, known to vary by as much as 20 deg F per mile and 49 deg F per two minutes. In order to get a thermometer per sq mile, you would need about 200 MILLION thermometers, and that would leave you with a margin of error of approx. +-10deg F... still not incredibly accurate, but at least able to form a beginning point for measuring... 7,500 thermometers is NOT 200 million thermometers...
BUT, but what about magickal satellites?!?!?!? Satellites do not measure absolute temperature. They measure light. One would need to take those light measurements and convert them into temperatures via the stefan boltzmann law. The issue there is that we do not know what the emissivity of Earth is. We do not know how much light is a result of Earth's radiance nor how much is a result of other reflections, such as sunlight and starlight... Thus, it creates a chicken and egg problem... In order to figure out the emissivity of Earth, we first need to know the temperature of Earth, which is what we are trying to figure out to begin with...
"Why do you value human life as an adult, as a teenager, as a pre-teenager, as a child, as a toddler, as an infant, but NOT as a fetus, embryo, or a zygote"
Because the former has higher brain function and the latter doesn't? Because the former doesn't require the use of another person's body functions to survive and the latter does?
Guno צְבִי (04-24-2019), ThatOwlWoman (04-24-2019)
RINO is the term for that rare Republican who puts country above party.
Right wing = lie, lie, and lie some more.
"When I am president I'm going to be working for you. I'm not going to have time to play golf" Donald J. Trump, world class snake oil salesman and compulsive golfer August 2016
The definition of "racist" as "anyone who is white" is itself racist.
Originally Posted by Colin Powell
ThatOwlWoman (04-24-2019)
RINO is the term for that rare Republican who puts country above party.
Right wing = lie, lie, and lie some more.
"When I am president I'm going to be working for you. I'm not going to have time to play golf" Donald J. Trump, world class snake oil salesman and compulsive golfer August 2016
The definition of "racist" as "anyone who is white" is itself racist.
Originally Posted by Colin Powell
ThatOwlWoman (04-24-2019)
RINO is the term for that rare Republican who puts country above party.
Right wing = lie, lie, and lie some more.
"When I am president I'm going to be working for you. I'm not going to have time to play golf" Donald J. Trump, world class snake oil salesman and compulsive golfer August 2016
The definition of "racist" as "anyone who is white" is itself racist.
Originally Posted by Colin Powell
“If we have to have a choice between being dead and pitied, and being alive with a bad image, we’d rather be alive and have the bad image.”
— Golda Meir
Zionism is the movement for the self-determination and statehood for the Jewish people in their ancestral homeland, the land of Israel.
ברוך השם
RINO is the term for that rare Republican who puts country above party.
Right wing = lie, lie, and lie some more.
"When I am president I'm going to be working for you. I'm not going to have time to play golf" Donald J. Trump, world class snake oil salesman and compulsive golfer August 2016
The definition of "racist" as "anyone who is white" is itself racist.
Originally Posted by Colin Powell
Bookmarks