The Physics Profession has not demanded accurate data on the distributions of steel and concrete down the towers. Who cares about Potential Energy and the Conservation of Momentum?
I guess it is time to burn Isaac Newton in effigy.
Interesting, you decided to drop syllables but seem to have missed the central tenant of "critical thinking". Logic and Critical Thinking, while closely related, are not at all the same thing. Critical means crucial, and while I would agree that to be truly critical it needs to be logical, not all logical things are critical. One could argue that thinking and debating about God is critical, while thinking or even debating about physics is not.
@ChristianKnowledge The next time you take an airline flight you can wonder if the designer of the plane knew anything about physics. Most likely most people on planes don't think about that. But since most planes get where they are supposed to the designers must have done the critical thinking about physics when it was critical.
@psikeyhackr Obviously we have two different ideas about what critical means. Air, food, water, these things are critical for life. Can I live without flying on a plane? Absolutely. People lived most of history without air-travel and we dont need it to live (let-alone in comfort). Understanding physics is not critical, BUT it is beneficial. However, thinking about God impacts our "eternal life" and is therefore far more critical than surviving a 4 hour plane ride, cross-country.
continuing from outher comment, because I ran of space,I do not say that I can disprove the existence of a god, because the burden of proof would fall on me but when I can say is that you provided insufficient evidence to prove the existence of a god therefore my default position and current position is that a god does not exist. i am a atheist,but a significant number of holy books contradict themselves/ that i read and defy the laws of physics
@leon2343 The default position is, "I don't know". Maybe I don't care.
But even if there is a God what is the evidence that He/She/It gives a damn or wants to be worshiped? Is religion just some people pretending they know more about God than everybody else?
yes i I agree with you but you have to remember when you are convicted someone and before the evidence is propose to you your default position is not guilty and win the evidence is give into you and it is supremely lacking your position is still not guilty the same with the existence of a god if you provide me with non conclusive /non irrefutable evidence, my position still stand that your god does not exist simply because the lack there of evidence.
@leon2343 to be convicted is to be found guilty so I assume you mean when you are accused? When you are accused, it depends under which type of court you are being tried and under who's jurisdiction. The U.S. etc have agreed that your are innocent until proven guilty but that does not mean that you will be tried that way everywhere. My point here we try the case of God's existence based on our own jurisdiction and there is no such thing as non-refutable evidence there.
Stinkin thinkin will get you nowhere without careful and thorough observation. This is what Darwin was about, while the trouble started when the bagpipes attributed his science to their personal beliefs. I doubt that he gave a hill of beans about the various labels used to describe his beliefs...G%
Except Darwin was a Christian too, the atheists have hi-jacked him. His view is theist-agnostic (like mine) "I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God. I think that generally ... an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind." (see the wikipedia section on the matter).
Mister Spock would roll his eyes btw. I am seriously starting to think that religious orthodoxy might be preferable to the atheist's lack of rigor.
@DarkwingScooter Ooh, same quote as 767 Captain. Hehe, anyhow I don't think the distinction is so terribly important. The point of the agnostic view is that you can believe whatever you like, so long as you are not dogmatically unreasonable about anything which you are not able to rigorously defend.
I do not think Christianity is incompatible with evolution, but atheism may be precisely because it has this false aura of "critical thinking" which is not based on anything but inflated egos.
Well known historian of science Maurice Mandelbaum (1908-1987) understood this. In an interesting analysis of Darwins religious views, he noted, In the end his Agnosticism was not one brought about by an equal balance of arguments ... it was an Agnosticism based on an incapacity to deny what there was no good reason for affirming. Those who regarded Agnosticism as merely an undogmatic form of atheism would, in my opinion, be correct in so characterizing Darwins own personal opinion.
You are wrong, Darwin was NOT an atheist. From Wiki: "...in 1879 he responded that he had never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God, and that generally "an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind."
"Critical Thinking"? -------
"In a pig's eye!!" (Dr. Leonard 'Bones' McCoy, circa 2260....)
Well, it's that day. TEN YEARS of Bad Physics!
The Physics Profession has not demanded accurate data on the distributions of steel and concrete down the towers. Who cares about Potential Energy and the Conservation of Momentum?
I guess it is time to burn Isaac Newton in effigy.
psikeyhackr 6 months ago in playlist More videos from psikeyhackr
Interesting, you decided to drop syllables but seem to have missed the central tenant of "critical thinking". Logic and Critical Thinking, while closely related, are not at all the same thing. Critical means crucial, and while I would agree that to be truly critical it needs to be logical, not all logical things are critical. One could argue that thinking and debating about God is critical, while thinking or even debating about physics is not.
ChristianKnowledge 6 months ago
@ChristianKnowledge The next time you take an airline flight you can wonder if the designer of the plane knew anything about physics. Most likely most people on planes don't think about that. But since most planes get where they are supposed to the designers must have done the critical thinking about physics when it was critical.
psikeyhackr 6 months ago
@psikeyhackr Obviously we have two different ideas about what critical means. Air, food, water, these things are critical for life. Can I live without flying on a plane? Absolutely. People lived most of history without air-travel and we dont need it to live (let-alone in comfort). Understanding physics is not critical, BUT it is beneficial. However, thinking about God impacts our "eternal life" and is therefore far more critical than surviving a 4 hour plane ride, cross-country.
ChristianKnowledge 6 months ago
continuing from outher comment, because I ran of space,I do not say that I can disprove the existence of a god, because the burden of proof would fall on me but when I can say is that you provided insufficient evidence to prove the existence of a god therefore my default position and current position is that a god does not exist. i am a atheist,but a significant number of holy books contradict themselves/ that i read and defy the laws of physics
leon2343 6 months ago
@leon2343 The default position is, "I don't know". Maybe I don't care.
But even if there is a God what is the evidence that He/She/It gives a damn or wants to be worshiped? Is religion just some people pretending they know more about God than everybody else?
psikeyhackr 6 months ago
yes i I agree with you but you have to remember when you are convicted someone and before the evidence is propose to you your default position is not guilty and win the evidence is give into you and it is supremely lacking your position is still not guilty the same with the existence of a god if you provide me with non conclusive /non irrefutable evidence, my position still stand that your god does not exist simply because the lack there of evidence.
leon2343 6 months ago
@leon2343 to be convicted is to be found guilty so I assume you mean when you are accused? When you are accused, it depends under which type of court you are being tried and under who's jurisdiction. The U.S. etc have agreed that your are innocent until proven guilty but that does not mean that you will be tried that way everywhere. My point here we try the case of God's existence based on our own jurisdiction and there is no such thing as non-refutable evidence there.
ChristianKnowledge 2 months ago
Fascinating
Captain
Fascinating .....
Charlie666XZ 1 year ago
Stinkin thinkin will get you nowhere without careful and thorough observation. This is what Darwin was about, while the trouble started when the bagpipes attributed his science to their personal beliefs. I doubt that he gave a hill of beans about the various labels used to describe his beliefs...G%
wordgeezer 1 year ago
Good stuff.
Except Darwin was a Christian too, the atheists have hi-jacked him. His view is theist-agnostic (like mine) "I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God. I think that generally ... an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind." (see the wikipedia section on the matter).
Mister Spock would roll his eyes btw. I am seriously starting to think that religious orthodoxy might be preferable to the atheist's lack of rigor.
DarkwingScooter 1 year ago
@DarkwingScooter Ooh, same quote as 767 Captain. Hehe, anyhow I don't think the distinction is so terribly important. The point of the agnostic view is that you can believe whatever you like, so long as you are not dogmatically unreasonable about anything which you are not able to rigorously defend.
I do not think Christianity is incompatible with evolution, but atheism may be precisely because it has this false aura of "critical thinking" which is not based on anything but inflated egos.
DarkwingScooter 1 year ago
Well known historian of science Maurice Mandelbaum (1908-1987) understood this. In an interesting analysis of Darwins religious views, he noted, In the end his Agnosticism was not one brought about by an equal balance of arguments ... it was an Agnosticism based on an incapacity to deny what there was no good reason for affirming. Those who regarded Agnosticism as merely an undogmatic form of atheism would, in my opinion, be correct in so characterizing Darwins own personal opinion.
psikeyhackr 2 years ago
You are wrong, Darwin was NOT an atheist. From Wiki: "...in 1879 he responded that he had never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God, and that generally "an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind."
"Critical Thinking"? -------
"In a pig's eye!!" (Dr. Leonard 'Bones' McCoy, circa 2260....)
767Captain 2 years ago