Page 103 of 228
Re: Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?
Posted: Mon Jan 20, 2025 3:14 am
by Immanuel Can
Dubious wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 3:10 am
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 2:59 am
Dubious wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 2:50 am
Care to account for the disharmony between what is merely a story and the almost certain historical event of Christ's crucifixion?
I can't find the rationale for the question. Sorry. I can't help you with that.
That's because there is no rationale to the silly story you so fervently believe in.
No, actually...it's because your rambling explanation isn't actually coherent. I can't even figure out why you imagine what you imagine. That's the real problem.
But I can see you're not interested in an answer anyway, so we can both save ourselves the effort.
Re: Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?
Posted: Mon Jan 20, 2025 3:18 am
by Dubious
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 3:14 am
Dubious wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 3:10 am
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 2:59 am
I can't find the rationale for the question. Sorry. I can't help you with that.
That's because there is no rationale to the silly story you so fervently believe in.
No, actually...it's because your rambling explanation isn't actually coherent. I can't even figure out why you imagine what you imagine. That's the real problem.
But I can see you're not interested in an answer anyway, so we can both save ourselves the effort.
If Adam and Eve never existed, what would have been the purpose of Christ's supposed sacrifice? I'm very interested in that answer...however ludicrous it may be.
Re: Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?
Posted: Mon Jan 20, 2025 3:29 am
by Immanuel Can
Dubious wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 3:18 am
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 3:14 am
Dubious wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 3:10 am
That's because there is no rationale to the silly story you so fervently believe in.
No, actually...it's because your rambling explanation isn't actually coherent. I can't even figure out why you imagine what you imagine. That's the real problem.
But I can see you're not interested in an answer anyway, so we can both save ourselves the effort.
If Adam and Eve never existed, what would have been the purpose of Christ's supposed sacrifice? I'm very interested in that answer...however ludicrous it may be.
Sorry...can't see the connection. How can you have a human race with no original mating pair of humans to produce them? By asexual reproduction, like an amoeba? The question's ridiculous.
Re: Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?
Posted: Mon Jan 20, 2025 3:33 am
by Dubious
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 3:29 am
Dubious wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 3:18 am
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 3:14 am
No, actually...it's because your rambling explanation isn't actually coherent. I can't even figure out why you imagine what you imagine. That's the real problem.
But I can see you're not interested in an answer anyway, so we can both save ourselves the effort.
If Adam and Eve never existed, what would have been the purpose of Christ's supposed sacrifice? I'm very interested in that answer...however ludicrous it may be.
Sorry...can't see the connection. How can you have a human race with no original mating pair of humans to produce them? By asexual reproduction, like an amoeba? The question's ridiculous.
It seems you're saying evolution is ridiculous and therefore the A&E story as declared in the bible must be true. Is that correct?
Re: Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?
Posted: Mon Jan 20, 2025 4:09 am
by Alexiev
BigMike wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 12:49 am
Alexiev, your ignorance is staggering. If you think determinism hasn’t improved or reshaped societal systems, you’re not just uninformed—you’re willfully blind.
Let’s start with medicine. Understanding the deterministic causes of illnesses—be they bacterial infections, genetic disorders, or environmental factors—has led directly to the development of targeted therapies. Antibiotics weren’t discovered by waving chicken entrails around; they came from studying the causal relationships between microorganisms and disease. Cancer treatments? Rooted in understanding the genetic and molecular causes of tumor growth. Vaccines? Deterministic knowledge of how viruses function and spread. Do you think these advancements happened by accident or sheer guesswork? Is this news to you?
Now let’s talk about technology. Understanding the deterministic nature of electrical sparks and currents has revolutionized human life. From harnessing electricity to power homes, to developing the internet, to enabling lifesaving medical devices, all of this stems from studying the deterministic principles of electromagnetism. None of this was achieved by invoking "uncaused causes" or magical thinking.
The list goes on: agriculture, engineering, climate science—all of these fields rely on deterministic models to improve human life and shape societal systems.
The deterministic approach has saved billions of lives, increased quality of life across the globe, and continues to be the foundation of every technological and scientific breakthrough.
As for your laughable comment about gravity: yes, our descriptions of gravity have evolved. That’s how science works—it refines its models as we gather better data. But the underlying phenomenon hasn’t changed. Objects still fall toward Earth, planets still orbit stars, and gravity still governs the large-scale structure of the universe. Descriptions aren’t prescriptive—they’re explanatory frameworks for what’s consistently observed. Confusing this for some kind of cosmic subjectivity only reveals your intellectual laziness.
So, Alexiev, I’ve laid out multiple ways determinism has reshaped society for the better. Unless you’re living under a rock (and judging by your comment, you might be), you’ve benefited from it, too.
The only question left is: will you retract your ridiculous claim, or double down on the ignorance?
So, let me repeat: Grow some balls and deal with my argument.
If determinism is irrelevant, prove it. If the four fundamental interactions don’t govern the universe, show me. If you can’t, just admit that you’re out of your depth and move on. Otherwise, you’re just proving my point: empty rhetoric, no substance.
Science is not necessarily determinism. Of course there have been scientific advances that have benefited mankind. Any moron (even you) can see that.
However, none of these scientific discoveries contradict free will. That's what the discussion involves, isn't it?
So you have yet to give a single example of how a deterministic model that contradicts free will has improved human welfare. Instead, you blather on about medical discoveries, which every non- deterministic world view recognizes and supports (except for a few whackos).
Nobody thinks there's anything wrong with science. But there is something wrong with thinking science can (or at least HAS, we don't know what's possible) improve the human condition in a great many important ways. How does it inform art, or politics, or human relations? In those areas, it has been a flop.
So don't take the cowardly approach of simply repeating what everyone already knows. Science is great. But it has been unable to predict human decisions, and is therefore worthless in supporting an argument about determinism vs. free will.
Why do you keep selling when nobody is buying? Are you
determined never to learn?
Re: Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?
Posted: Mon Jan 20, 2025 5:10 am
by Immanuel Can
Dubious wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 3:33 am
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 3:29 am
Dubious wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 3:18 am
If Adam and Eve never existed, what would have been the purpose of Christ's supposed sacrifice? I'm very interested in that answer...however ludicrous it may be.
Sorry...can't see the connection. How can you have a human race with no original mating pair of humans to produce them? By asexual reproduction, like an amoeba? The question's ridiculous.
It seems you're saying evolution is ridiculous...
I'm just asking what your theory is. How did the human race get started without sexual reproduction? I've never heard at theory like that, and I'd find it intriguing to hear it spun out.
Re: Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?
Posted: Mon Jan 20, 2025 6:17 am
by Atla
There's a unique charm to people rabidly arguing against determinism on the internet, members of the technological civilization, using their computers and smartphones to do so. When the technological civilization, the computers and the smartphones and the internet are based on the deterministic behaviour of nature, they wouldn't exist without it.
Re: Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?
Posted: Mon Jan 20, 2025 8:01 am
by accelafine
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 5:10 am
Dubious wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 3:33 am
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 3:29 am
Sorry...can't see the connection. How can you have a human race with no original mating pair of humans to produce them? By asexual reproduction, like an amoeba? The question's ridiculous.
It seems you're saying evolution is ridiculous...
I'm just asking what your theory is. How did the human race get started without sexual reproduction? I've never heard at theory like that, and I'd find it intriguing to hear it spun out.
This can't be a serious question. Any book on evolution will enlighten you. Richard Dawkins' 'The greatest show on earth' is a beautiful book and easy for complete novices like you to understand. You're welcome.
Re: Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?
Posted: Mon Jan 20, 2025 8:33 am
by BigMike
Alexiev wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 4:09 am
BigMike wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 12:49 am
Alexiev, your ignorance is staggering. If you think determinism hasn’t improved or reshaped societal systems, you’re not just uninformed—you’re willfully blind.
Let’s start with medicine. Understanding the deterministic causes of illnesses—be they bacterial infections, genetic disorders, or environmental factors—has led directly to the development of targeted therapies. Antibiotics weren’t discovered by waving chicken entrails around; they came from studying the causal relationships between microorganisms and disease. Cancer treatments? Rooted in understanding the genetic and molecular causes of tumor growth. Vaccines? Deterministic knowledge of how viruses function and spread. Do you think these advancements happened by accident or sheer guesswork? Is this news to you?
Now let’s talk about technology. Understanding the deterministic nature of electrical sparks and currents has revolutionized human life. From harnessing electricity to power homes, to developing the internet, to enabling lifesaving medical devices, all of this stems from studying the deterministic principles of electromagnetism. None of this was achieved by invoking "uncaused causes" or magical thinking.
The list goes on: agriculture, engineering, climate science—all of these fields rely on deterministic models to improve human life and shape societal systems.
The deterministic approach has saved billions of lives, increased quality of life across the globe, and continues to be the foundation of every technological and scientific breakthrough.
As for your laughable comment about gravity: yes, our descriptions of gravity have evolved. That’s how science works—it refines its models as we gather better data. But the underlying phenomenon hasn’t changed. Objects still fall toward Earth, planets still orbit stars, and gravity still governs the large-scale structure of the universe. Descriptions aren’t prescriptive—they’re explanatory frameworks for what’s consistently observed. Confusing this for some kind of cosmic subjectivity only reveals your intellectual laziness.
So, Alexiev, I’ve laid out multiple ways determinism has reshaped society for the better. Unless you’re living under a rock (and judging by your comment, you might be), you’ve benefited from it, too.
The only question left is: will you retract your ridiculous claim, or double down on the ignorance?
So, let me repeat: Grow some balls and deal with my argument.
If determinism is irrelevant, prove it. If the four fundamental interactions don’t govern the universe, show me. If you can’t, just admit that you’re out of your depth and move on. Otherwise, you’re just proving my point: empty rhetoric, no substance.
Science is not necessarily determinism. Of course there have been scientific advances that have benefited mankind. Any moron (even you) can see that.
However, none of these scientific discoveries contradict free will. That's what the discussion involves, isn't it?
So you have yet to give a single example of how a deterministic model that contradicts free will has improved human welfare. Instead, you blather on about medical discoveries, which every non- deterministic world view recognizes and supports (except for a few whackos).
Nobody thinks there's anything wrong with science. But there is something wrong with thinking science can (or at least HAS, we don't know what's possible) improve the human condition in a great many important ways. How does it inform art, or politics, or human relations? In those areas, it has been a flop.
So don't take the cowardly approach of simply repeating what everyone already knows. Science is great. But it has been unable to predict human decisions, and is therefore worthless in supporting an argument about determinism vs. free will.
Why do you keep selling when nobody is buying? Are you
determined never to learn?
Alexiev, your response is a masterclass in evasion, conflation, and intellectual laziness. You’re deliberately moving the goalposts because you can’t address the core argument:
the deterministic framework governs all physical phenomena, including the human brain, rendering "free will" an incoherent fantasy.
You smugly assert that science and determinism aren’t the same—no kidding. But here’s the thing:
science operates within the deterministic framework of cause and effect. It doesn’t matter if the subject is medicine, technology, or human behavior—the success of science lies in its ability to uncover the causes of phenomena and use that knowledge predictively. If "free will" existed, science would be unable to reliably improve lives, because causeless, unpredictable events would constantly interfere. Yet, here we are, living in a world transformed by deterministic insights.
Your claim that "none of these scientific discoveries contradict free will" is absurd. Determinism leaves no room for magical, uncaused choices. Every choice, every thought, and every decision is the product of neural processes governed by physical laws. If free will existed, you’d need to show how it interacts with those processes without violating the conservation laws. You’ve provided nothing—just rhetoric and hand-waving.
You scoff at determinism’s influence on art, politics, and human relations. Let’s take a closer look:
- Art: Understanding psychology (a deterministic science) has revolutionized how artists connect with their audience, from cinema to advertising to literature.
- Politics: Deterministic insights into economics, sociology, and behavioral science have informed policy decisions that shape nations.
- Human Relations: Behavioral psychology, a deterministic field, underpins therapies that help millions navigate relationships, mental health, and personal development.
You demand an example of a deterministic model improving human welfare while rejecting the entire premise that human behavior is governed by deterministic processes. That’s a laughable contradiction. If you can’t grasp how understanding the causes of behavior leads to better outcomes—less punitive justice, more targeted education, therapies, and interventions—you’re beyond reason.
Science doesn’t need to predict every human decision to support determinism. That’s a strawman argument. Science works by identifying patterns and probabilities within constraints. The fact that you equate this with "worthlessness" only highlights your ignorance.
So, Alexiev, let me spell it out for you one last time:
- Determinism isn’t just a useful framework—it’s reality. Everything we observe follows the rules of the universe’s four fundamental interactions and conservation laws.
- Free will, as you defend it, requires rejecting these foundational principles. If you’re going to argue otherwise, show your work. Which conservation law does free will violate, and how does it interact with the physical brain?
- Stop dodging, stop deflecting, and stop acting as if your vacuous rhetoric is clever. It’s not. It’s cowardice masquerading as intellect.
Re: Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?
Posted: Mon Jan 20, 2025 12:02 pm
by Belinda
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 5:10 am
Dubious wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 3:33 am
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 3:29 am
Sorry...can't see the connection. How can you have a human race with no original mating pair of humans to produce them? By asexual reproduction, like an amoeba? The question's ridiculous.
It seems you're saying evolution is ridiculous...
I'm just asking what your theory is. How did the human race get started without sexual reproduction? I've never heard at theory like that, and I'd find it intriguing to hear it spun out.
Do you believe, Immanuel, that the story of Adam and Eve is a species of history?
Moreover does Immanuel claim that the OT and the NT always did have one and only one correct interpretation, still do have one and only one correct interpretation and always will have one and only one correct interpretation?
Re: Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?
Posted: Mon Jan 20, 2025 12:04 pm
by Dubious
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 5:10 am
Dubious wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 3:33 am
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 3:29 am
Sorry...can't see the connection. How can you have a human race with no original mating pair of humans to produce them? By asexual reproduction, like an amoeba? The question's ridiculous.
It seems you're saying evolution is ridiculous...
I'm just asking what your theory is. How did the human race get started without sexual reproduction? I've never heard at theory like that, and I'd find it intriguing to hear it spun out.
I'm happy to expedite your path to enlightenment as requested...
Approximately three million years ago there was this young female named Lucy who, by account, was extremely good-looking but also very lonely until by chance she met Ricky who was equally lonely but very handsome. (There were very few of their kind around at the time and their meeting wasn't inevitable!) Well, as you may imagine, the chemistry was immediate and on fire, having occurred most fortuitously at this precise historically centered moment of intense mutual recognition that the subsequent history of the human race was decided once and for all, when Ricky was the first to say
I love Lucy.
As expected, it was during this
first liaison that they decided to rent a deluxe hollow at the grotto hotel somewhere near the Hollywood Hills in order to get to know each other more intimately. It was a period of intense experimentation but they finally got it right having forgotten none of the experiments in the process.
This, as far as we can ascertain,
is the true story of the first mating couple ...besides which, we have the separate autobiographies of both Ricky and Lucy confirming each other's narrative of how the beginning began. Chronologically, this clearly predates Adam & Eve who were eons apart in the saga of who was the first mating couple. Sorry about that!
In short, an adult asking a stupid question likewise deserves a stupid answer
Re: Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?
Posted: Mon Jan 20, 2025 12:34 pm
by Immanuel Can
accelafine wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 8:01 am
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 5:10 am
Dubious wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 3:33 am
It seems you're saying evolution is ridiculous...
I'm just asking what your theory is. How did the human race get started without sexual reproduction? I've never heard at theory like that, and I'd find it intriguing to hear it spun out.
This can't be a serious question.
It's Dubious's question -- or rather, it seems to be Dubious's suggestion or implication -- not mine. I'm just trying to make sense of it.
Re: Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?
Posted: Mon Jan 20, 2025 12:34 pm
by Immanuel Can
Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 12:02 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 5:10 am
Dubious wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 3:33 am
It seems you're saying evolution is ridiculous...
I'm just asking what your theory is. How did the human race get started without sexual reproduction? I've never heard at theory like that, and I'd find it intriguing to hear it spun out.
Do you believe, Immanuel, that the story of Adam and Eve is a species of history?
I'm trying to find out what Dubious actually thinks.
Re: Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?
Posted: Mon Jan 20, 2025 12:41 pm
by Immanuel Can
Dubious wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 12:04 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 5:10 am
Dubious wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 3:33 am
It seems you're saying evolution is ridiculous...
I'm just asking what your theory is. How did the human race get started without sexual reproduction? I've never heard at theory like that, and I'd find it intriguing to hear it spun out.
I'm happy to expedite your path to enlightenment as requested...
That's interesting. So you don't actually have a contrary theory to the theory that an original mating pair was necessary for the human race to exist...if you did, I'm sure you'd simply have offered it.
Well, then, your skepticism regarding that original story isn't founded in anything, it would seem. You don't have an alternative story -- at least, not one you have any reason to prefer.
Of course, I knew that. But now, you do, too.
Re: Why Do the Religious Reject Science While Embracing the Impossible?
Posted: Mon Jan 20, 2025 1:08 pm
by Gary Childress
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 12:41 pm
Dubious wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 12:04 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2025 5:10 am
I'm just asking what your theory is. How did the human race get started without sexual reproduction? I've never heard at theory like that, and I'd find it intriguing to hear it spun out.
I'm happy to expedite your path to enlightenment as requested...
That's interesting. So you don't actually have a contrary theory to the theory that an original mating pair was necessary for the human race to exist...if you did, I'm sure you'd simply have offered it.
Well, then, your skepticism regarding that original story isn't founded in anything, it would seem. You don't have an alternative story -- at least, not one you have any reason to prefer.
Of course, I knew that. But now, you do, too.
From the sounds of it, he may have been disputing original sin and thus whether Christ needed to die for that sin. If the tale of the Garden of Eden is some kind of allegorical myth, then might that mean that original sin is an allegorical myth as well? If it is an allegorical myth that there was a talking snake and an apple that God told the first two people not to eat then what might have been our true original sin, if not that?