Breh, anything you post publicly I'm going to respond to publicly. If you want to take it to DMs then YOU post your response in DMs, posting it publicly and then asking me to respond privately is just a bullshyt way of trying to get in the last word.
This single quote says a LOT about you.
My brother, this board means far too much to you. This is an absolutely ridiculous assertion. I've been nothing short of transparent and honest on this board. I was trying to be polite to the OP.
Not to mention, that doesn't make sense, as YOU were the one that accosted me. I'm responding to YOU.
You quote me > I respond to that quote. If you continue responding to me, you'd have an odd-number statement/response system.
Naturally, it follows that I am the one that gets the last word anyway, as you began a debate with me, meaning I have to respond to questions and assertions made by you in response to me, unless you're trying to make this a battle of who's going to tap out first, in which case,
you have met your motherfukking match.
I argue for a living, and quite literally have nothing BUT time. My name might as well be Infinite Regress.
If you wanted the last word, you should have just said that
That's a nonsense assertion considering the Catholic faith spread just fine before there even was a book
You have continued to make a fairly obvious mistake, even after my post to you explaining what I'm talking about. This lets me know you hit "multi-quote" instead of reading my entire post first.
Here's what I said:
Hold on-- I see what you're trying to do here. Let's back up and clarify something: the physical book isn't the point of the argument. The legend contained within that book is the point.
See? You're trying to skirt past my actual point, which is the legend itself, which is contained within that book. When someone says "the bible" (torah, quran), they're saying the teachings within, and you know that. I don't know who you think you're fooling with this deflection, but you're wasting my time.
I didn't say they "believe in science", you're straight misquoting me
Why would you lie on a forum where I can literally post what you said?
It's like saying that scientists' beliefs are based on the current state of science textbooks
The textbook records what they believe, but the basis of those beliefs comes from elsewhere
For the most part scientists do in fact believe in the laws of physics, but that's totally besides the point and has zero relevance to the analogy
For clarity's sake (because you're trying to juelz something fierce right now), the first quote is you attempting to equate science and religion on the basis of your misguided concept that scientists practice a belief system. That's why I called your analogy ridiculous.
Concede.
Scientists don't believe "in" science, but they have a great deal of beliefs about science. For instance, they trust the vast majority of the laws of physics to be true - in other words, they believe those laws to be an accurate representation of the world, or the believe in those laws. In fact, if you actually knew physicists, you'd know they believe in many of them with something quite akin to religious belief despite their distaste for that comparison
This is just pure nonsense. You are absolutely, 100% without a doubt
incorrect here.
There is no belief required-- they can demonstrate these concepts to be true. Truth is what the facts are, and the facts are that physical concepts simply exist, whether you "believe" in them or not. Gravity, for example, exists. You release a ball from your hand while standing on Earth or the Moon, it falls down. Not sideways, not up, not diagonally, it falls DOWN (towards a planet's center).
xCivicx does not believe this is due to gravity. He thinks this is due to buoyancy and density (unaware those concepts have no meaning without gravity, either).
But as you can see, regardless of his belief, things still fall down. This is physics; you do not have to BELIEVE that things fall down, you can SHOW that it does.
And further, why the fukk would you go on an entire solliloquy, lying about you not saying scientists believe in science only to literally state that they do believe in science in the same paragraph?
f you are being hung up on the word "belief", like most scientists are due to its religious associations, then we can easily change it to "trust". Scientists trust the laws of physics that they've been taught. They don't attempt to independently verify all of them, and outside of their specific field they rarely read the original experimental papers describing them - they believe what they've been taught
Breh, you are ill-equipped to debate this topic, and are obviously out of your depth. This is fukking comical.
Scientists that actually do science independently verify the concepts within science BY ACTUALLY DOING SCIENCE AND MATH. You're obviously unaware that science is competitive, in that scientists are literally trying to debunk each other all the time. Scientific consensus is a figurative trial by fire; it is not taken lightly, and no one BELIEVES in these concepts. They understand them, and can demonstrate them, big difference.
They "trust" the science, because it works, and can be demonstrated to work. You "trust" that if you add two apples to a basket that already has two other apples, it'll be four in the basket right? Same concept-- that can be demonstrated. Trying to equate trust and belief in this way is weasel wording.
Every high school that has labwork has students independently verify the concepts presented to them in their books, allowing them (or anyone) the opportunity to debunk those concepts presented by actually doing the work. If anyone COULD debunk those concepts, there is a fat Nobel Prize waiting for them for their monumental discovery, incentivizing a scientist to actually independently verify things they've been taught.
Your view of this topic is straight up creationism/intelligent design levels of inarticulacy. You don't know what you are talking about, but assume that you do, due to your alleged credentials, my g. Pure Dunning-Kruger.
This is just a nonsense slur - I've posted far more of actual physics and actual church doctrine and history in this conversation than you have. You're complaining about anecdotes when virtually your entire argument is being made without anecdotes or broader evidence - you're literally just making assertions and then claiming they're true without any evidence at all
The beautiful thing about the things I'm saying is that I don't need to post things to verify them-- you can do that yourself. That's the wonder of science and science communication: everything I have said can be searched for and found by anyone here willing to do the work.
I am not trying to impress forum readers with my ability to Google and copy/paste things. I'm far more interested in dissecting the logic of my opponent when I argue, and will provide evidence when absolutely necessary.
See, you think this is a numbers game, where it's about who can post what and how many times, when I have demonstrated that you don't know what you're talking about simply by responding to the arguments you've presented. I don't even NEED to post the relevant scientific literature-- I've already cooked you without it.
Heck, you think scientists *believe* in these concepts anyway, so what the hell are you posting physics for?
And I didn't follow Christianity until I turned 19 - church was irrelevant to my life growing up just like it was irrelevant to my dad, and I was working towards being a future scientist long before I had any faith. Not sure why that personal anecdote of yours was relevant, but there you go
To understand why it was relevant, all you had to do was read my post in its context. I was responding to you saying this:
there are numerous very intelligent, highly educated Catholic priests who work in various teaching positions in universities
So you see, the point was that I, myself, am one of those people that you are referring to- an intelligent and highly educated (former) believer. I've done the work on both sides, and have come to no longer believe. However, I still have a pretty damn good grasp on what the religious believe, being that I was one, my family still are, and have studied the ideas presented by them (by force, unfortunately). As an atheist that has debated this topic more times than I can count over the past 20 years, I think I'm uniquely positioned to talk about this topic. Regardless of what you think of me currently, I'm sure you realize this, even if you won't admit it now.
So what's your point then? If you finally realize you made a wrong claim about the book, and that faith is mediated through the community and not through reading, then what are you trying to prove?
My point was quite clear. I even used the phrase "the point":
Hold on-- I see what you're trying to do here. Let's back up and clarify something: the physical book isn't the point of the argument. The legend contained within that book is the point
You've attempted to force an argument about the physical entity itself, whereas I've been talking about the doctrine contained within the book, using "the bible" as a euphemism for these systems. This is what I meant by I see what you're trying to do here; you want to make a side-argument about something else so that you can preen. I see right through that tactic.
My point was that the Catholic faith did not originate with the Bible nor has it ever depended on the Bible to continue
I'm aware, hence my points above. This is called a strawman argument. Your entire tangent is dependent upon you misinterpreting what I was saying here:
We only have a book that says a god exists, and the only evidence we have the book is true is the book itself
You took this as me saying they needed the book to create their doctrine, but the point I was making is that there is no evidence of a god outside of a book saying there was. Go on, click the quote and re-read what I was saying there.
My argument was about evidence, and you've (successfully) made me argue about a position I don't even hold, because I thought we (as in, you and I) were talking about doctrine itself, and I assumed you were smart enough to understand what I was saying. Good job, but this is the end of that. I won't reply to any more quotes from you about the book itself. I don't care about that, and I'm not interested in going in circles with you about it.
That's always a bad sign - if you have to disbelieve reality when you get challenged, then it suggests that you're not interpreting it very clearly.
Nah. The only thing it suggests is that I am a skeptic; I do not believe things without evidence, and you've given me nothing but reason to doubt you at this point.
You're right, I don't care for the philosophy of science. That is quite literally an endless debate. I only care about the hard sciences, and that which can be demonstrated to be true. I have no ego on this-- I go where the evidence points me. The only thing I have an ego about is my own ability to debate and parse through poor logic, but I've earned that ego.
I received my physics degree from one of the most highly respected STEM institutions in the country, did research work on a groundbreaking physics technology, and had an internship at one of the most renowned institutes of physics in the country. I am not only a trained physicist but am quite good at it, and was highly respected by my professors. I also worked hard to understand the underlying philosophy of science both in university and since, which you seem to have omitted in favor of the naïve philosophical claims of the scientists themselves. I had at least three lengthy discussions with a PhD philosopher of science and professor just this year - while she is an an atheist and quite a strong critic of religion, on science our views are almost perfectly aligned and she has used my writing in her courses
to you if all of that is true. This is the kind of thing I love to see. However, having said that, this is the internet, and you'll forgive me if I don't take you at your word. I am evidenced-based; DM me your credentials. I won't share them with anyone.
