DrKrettin

Atlantis is myth, they say. Atlantis is myth, you parrot.

Don't be so bloody ridiculous. Atlantis remains a myth until there is evidence to the contrary. Nothing to do with parroting. That is what bible nut cases do.

Edit: I wrote that when the post was just a few lines. What has been added is not worth responding to.

So, to clarify.

As far as I can see, there is no wisdom in any ancient text that isn't "common sense".

If I'm wrong, provide an example.

It is difficult to understand what you mean here, because the context is confusing. But if it is correct to take that at face value, for you to make that statement, you must have read most ancient texts, including Homer, Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides. If you then claim there is no wisdom there, you must also claim the same for Shakespeare and Goethe, and we must have a very different understanding of what constitutes wisdom.

I very much hope that you mean something totally different.

It won't happen on the 1st toss;

I've already experienced that!

If you say it will not happen on the first toss, you are saying that the probability is zero. If the probability is not zero, then you cannot say it will not happen on the first toss. Well, you could, but you would be wrong.

Simply put,

if I flipped the coin

100 times,

I still would NOT get an edge_stander

i.e. NOT even 1/100.

You don't know that - it might happen on the first toss. But probably not.

Dimreepr, how can you make an instant leap from "the contents of the bible" to "ancient wisdom" so seamlessly?

Good point that I forgot to mention. When I talked about ancient wisdom, I was not referring to the contents of the bible. I do not see why the two should be considered to be related, let alone equated.

 

So you think there's no possibility, at all, that ancient wisdom equates with, so called, modern wisdom?

Hang on - I disagreed with this assertion: "The secularist's complete refusal to accept the historical evidence of widespread conversions....."

Which reads differently if you insert a "that":

"The secularist's complete refusal to accept that the historical evidence of widespread conversions, in the early days of the major religions, is evidence that they WERE understood at the time, and so potentially contain wisdom.

Actually, now I understand what you meant, I still disagree that secularists always refuse to accept this. It is ironic that you challenge me on ancient wisdom because I have spent some time studying it, and I see no clear evidence that modern wisdom is necessarily superior, just different.

Edit: cross-posted with the above - I'm glad to see others don't quite understand what you meant.

The secularist's complete refusal to accept the historical evidence of widespread conversions, in the early days of the major religions, is evidence that they WERE understood at the time, and so potentially contain wisdom.

 

The religion's complete refusal to accept evidence.

 

Maybe unbalanced but equally true.

 

I can't agree at all with the first assertion - why would people not accept historical evidence? I should think that the vast majority of atheists would accept the historical evidence of widespread conversions. That does not mean that they accept any of the tenets of those beliefs, just that all the converted were deluded.

After that rubbish, I will have one last word here. ...... After all, the weight of evidence concerning God and the supernatural events associated with such, is far greater than much of the evidence on which the sciences are based.

Either you have absolutely no concept of rational thought or you need to seek medical help. One thing is clear - you are incapable of discussion because your rigid views are fixed. At least a scientist recognises that any science is based on evidence and a scientific theory may be discarded when fresh evidence becomes available. Your mindset is not so flexible.

Um - isn't that turning gold into lead?

The Scientific American says yes.

Today I learned that most people use penises as a plural of penis, whereas penes is much easier. I was trying to post something constructive about the word "drake" but gave up.

 

I guess a certain percentage of a given population simply do not care about trying to determine the workings of the world and are happy to believe whatever prevails in their society.

Which is why the Catholic church has been so powerful. Fortunately with education, this is changing.

And here we go with dunning and krugger etc,

 

 

I still have time on my side in my early 40's

Good - you still have time to improve your spelling and grammar. My guess is that you won't.

My hastiness to explain is often my ''down fall''. I forget and jump ''miles'' ahead of your present understanding.

Can you actually see how ridiculously arrogant that sounds on a science forum?

 

People are simply brushing off any idea that devites from traditional interpretation no matter how weakly based is that interpretation. They are also brushing off the supporting evidence.

As I understand it, the speculation was that the speed of light was variable. If so, the above is just nonsense.

The Bible itself, the churches, the faiths (belief systems, like yours specialising in science instead of humanity) and a whole lot more are evidence. Your claim is not just false, but hypocritical.

This is the problem one has in "turning a believer". They do not have an intelligent concept of evidence. Exactly what is the bible evidence of?

I don't reckon there is much difference in a belief in God (by any other name), and a belief in science, despite appearances.

There is one fundamental difference - physical evidence. Evidence of the senses. I am appalled that somebody cannot see this.

The expression "belief in science" attempts to place science on the same level of ignorance as religion. Please stop it.

All religions that teach such things are the work of God's anthropomorphic hands. All such teach as needed by the people and their fate by laws science as not reached. Currently, in my opinion, science has stalled due lies or gone dark by force, and is recognised to be in crisis by others besides myself.

This is a demonstration of how impossible the thread title is. A believer is usually so closed-minded and incapable of rational argument that discussion is pointless. Not only that, they have usually invested so much time and energy in the belief that they are totally unprepared to ditch it and re-think.

The best joke of today is this, don't miss out the irony.

 

 

I missed out on irony, humour, grammar and sense

Ofcourse. But this is a thread on "how to turn a believer" and lets not turn it into "was Jesus a real person" thread which is endless BS.

 

 

I agree totally. But the point I was trying to make was that his assertion that J existed is a strawman argument and he has to realise it is. Let's all assume he did exist and ask "so what?"

There are no absolutes, but the hypothesis that Jesus existed is way more probable than much of mainstream, and you know it.

My guess is that Jesus probably did exist as a real person. But the leap from that "fact" to the conclusion that therefore he was the son of god is totally irrational.

The ARGUMENT FROM AUTHORITY is not a logical fallacy, genius. It is one form of inductive reasoning.

RationalWiki:

An argument from authority refers to two kinds of logical arguments:

1. A logically valid argument from authority grounds a claim in the beliefs of one or more authoritative source(s), whose opinions are likely to be true on the relevant issue. Notably, this is a Bayesian statement -- it is likely to be true, rather than necessarily true. As such, an argument from authority can only strongly suggest what is true -- not prove it.
2. A logically fallacious argument from authority grounds a claim in the beliefs of a source that is not authoritative. Sources could be non-authoritative because of their personal bias, their disagreement with consensus on the issue, their non-expertise in the relevant issue, or a number of other issues. (Often, this is called an appeal to authority, rather than argument from authority.)

One must also consider the Jewish people, who include Einstein and Newton.

Why on Earth do you think Newton was Jewish?

I've read the text in the link. Ignoring the impression the first diagram gives, that it is a design for a bra, all you have is a few paragraphs, some of which start "I believe that...". It does not even begin to address anything specific. I tell you what - explain just one observed physical phenomenon, such as, say, the perihelion shift in Mercury's orbit, and I'll read it again.

What I do not understand is why the dates in column 1 and column 3 are not 6 months apart given that column 1 indicates when the sun "is in" the constellation, surely means that 6 months earlier or later would be the best time to observe the constellation as it would then be on the other side of the Earth from the sun? In other words least effected by the suns light ?

 

If the question is about the best time to observe the constellations, as far as I can see, the dates given are around six months from those in column 1, so I don't really see what the problem is. I can't see why a month or two's variation is going to make any difference to viewing conditions.