Can someone with QM knowledge debunk this guy?

Anything that doesn't fit anywhere else below.

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

Re: Can someone with QM knowledge debunk this guy?

#41  Postby Spearthrower » Mar 09, 2020 3:45 pm

Nevets wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:

God
Will
Word
Light

Because the creation of the universe is a religious story.


Correct.

I do not know what is more preposterous, a person that believes Jesus died for our sins, and that God created the world in 7 days, or a person that would attribute this belief to someone, simply because they used a bible for historic reference.


Well, clearly the former would be vastly more preposterous as it makes masses more assumptions than the latter. They're not even comparable.

Not that the latter is an accurate rendition of what occurred: what actually occurred is that you sought to claim a scientific basis for a word from the Bible for no good reason. You've still not offered one. You've also basically been caught lifting your ideas from Answers in Genesis, so I get the feeling you're not being entirely truthful.


Nevets wrote:That would be Irrational Skepticism.


Let's be blunt here Nevets, everyone who's engaged with you so far has basically walked away because you are so horribly confused on every topic that even addressing your point would take a massive investment from people to explain the basic premises underlying the erroneous claim you've made. So the notion that you're the arbiter or what's rational skepticism or not is farcical.

But it is the kind of tactic a troll might use.


Nevets wrote:Obviously you have a lot of pre-conceived notions.


Obviously you haven't bothered to find out any of my positions because it's clearly easier to make them up for me.


Nevets wrote:But using a bible for reference, would be just that, it would be making a statement, that the only way the youtuber conspiracy theorist can be debunked, is by getting a good bible bashing.

Because it is a matter of blind faith.


Again, it's just a non-sequitur - you've not even attempted to explain why you would think of using the Bible as a reference for modern scientific knowledge. It's completely irrational behavior for anyone who isn't a Christian apologist or stunningly ignorant of the way the world works.


Nevets wrote:Though the confucian in me, which does not oppose, nor impose, allows me to use a bible for certain purposes, without assuming myself an authority on the book, or the subject, and without bearing a cross


So you're a Confucian now too? :coffee:

I also use the Bible for certain purposes: like reading what Christians believe.

I don't use the Bible to predict what the weather will be like on my next holiday.

I don't use the Bible as a recipe when baking a cake.

I don't use the Bible to decide what product of science is valid or debatable.

Each example is equally irrational, each example is in itself a non-sequitur. The Bible is not and cannot be a guide to any product of modern science because people simply did not possess any relevant knowledge at the time of the Bible's writing.

So why would someone appeal to a word in the Bible as part of a discussion about science? To debunk it? But that's not what you were doing at all.

Honestly, you're giving a lot of people here the sense that there's something suspect about your motivations.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27954
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Can someone with QM knowledge debunk this guy?

#42  Postby Nevets » Mar 09, 2020 3:59 pm

Spearthrower wrote:




Spearthrower wrote:Obviously you haven't bothered to find out any of my positions because it's clearly easier to make them up for me.


Your position is your buisness, not mine.
If you wish to elaborate on what your position is, please do so.

Spearthrower wrote:
So you're a Confucian now too? :coffee:

I also use the Bible for certain purposes: like reading what Christians believe.

I don't use the Bible to predict what the weather will be like on my next holiday.

I don't use the Bible as a recipe when baking a cake.

I don't use the Bible to decide what product of science is valid or debatable.

Each example is equally irrational, each example is in itself a non-sequitur. The Bible is not and cannot be a guide to any product of modern science because people simply did not possess any relevant knowledge at the time of the Bible's writing.

So why would someone appeal to a word in the Bible as part of a discussion about science? To debunk it? But that's not what you were doing at all.

Honestly, you're giving a lot of people here the sense that there's something suspect about your motivations.


So you want an example of how the bible can be used for non religious purposes?

An example might be a person that may, or may not suspect, that some of the stories in the old testament took roots from the Zuo Zhuan, and were terribly bad retranslations, mixed with all types of religious delusion. Aswell as relocation.

The Zuo zhuan, generally translated The Zuo Tradition or The Commentary of Zuo, is an ancient Chinese narrative history that is traditionally regarded as a commentary on the ancient Chinese chronicle Spring and Autumn Annals. It comprises 30 chapters covering a period from 722 to 468 BC, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zuo_zhuan


An example of a story, one may or may not suspect of being taken from the Zuo Zhuan, may be Sodem and Gammorah

Divine judgment was passed upon them and four of them were consumed by fire and brimstone. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodom_and_Gomorrah


Some may or may not believe that this story came from King Zhou and Daji

King Zhou of Shang was the pejorative posthumous name given to Di Xin (Chinese: 帝辛; pinyin: Dì Xīn), the last king of the Shang dynasty of ancient China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Zhou_of_Shang


and Daji

Daji was the favorite consort of King Zhou of Shang, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daji


But to find out why, one might come to that conclusion, or, dismiss it, one would first have to read the story of King Zhou of Shang and Daji, and also read the accounts in the bible. Or, at least have at least minimal knowledge on the subject.

Though Christians would view the bible being used for this purpose, as Satanic.

An Atheist may have equally extreme views on the bible being used for any purpose, which is why Atheism is as much a hinderance, and equally as small minded, as Christianity.
User avatar
Nevets
Banned User
 
Name: steven gall
Posts: 368

Country: United Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Can someone with QM knowledge debunk this guy?

#43  Postby laklak » Mar 09, 2020 4:17 pm

What difference does it make if the fairy tales originated elsewhere? They're still fucking fairy tales at the end of the day. May as well quote the 3 Little Pigs or Red Riding Hood.
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way. - Mark Twain
The sky is falling! The sky is falling! - Chicken Little
I never go without my dinner. No one ever does, except vegetarians and people like that - Oscar Wilde
User avatar
laklak
RS Donator
 
Name: Florida Man
Posts: 20878
Age: 67
Male

Country: The Great Satan
Swaziland (sz)
Print view this post

Re: Can someone with QM knowledge debunk this guy?

#44  Postby campermon » Mar 09, 2020 4:52 pm

theropod_V_2.0 wrote:Ice is matter, and fire is too. How can either create what it already is?

RE


Fire and ice eh?

Image

:coffee:
Scarlett and Ironclad wrote:Campermon,...a middle aged, middle class, Guardian reading, dad of four, knackered hippy, woolly jumper wearing wino and science teacher.
User avatar
campermon
RS Donator
 
Posts: 17437
Age: 51
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Can someone with QM knowledge debunk this guy?

#45  Postby Nevets » Mar 09, 2020 4:55 pm

laklak wrote:What difference does it make if the fairy tales originated elsewhere? They're still fucking fairy tales at the end of the day. May as well quote the 3 Little Pigs or Red Riding Hood.


Because Islamists, and Christians believe they own the book, and that they have the right to impose their views on it, and oppose anyone else.

Atheism makes the mistake of thinking that enlightenment is about coming to the realisation that Jesus is a myth, and everything else is the proverbial.

But the problem with Christians and Islamists, is not their belief in Jesus, or anything. The problem is their "imposing, and, opposing".

Atheists make the mistake of continuing to impose, and oppose, using the same arrogant opinions, profanities, and vulgarity.

Everyone has a right to believe what they want.

If someone wants to practise a form of nontheism, even if just flittingly, at the same time as practising a speculative skepticism, or some confucian philosophies, what is the harm? Does it make Grand Master Kong ones messiah? and does it mean he did not exist either?

But do you have any proof that the spring and autumn period

Spring and Autumn period was a period in Chinese history from approximately 771 to 476 BC (or according to some authorities until 403 BC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spring_and_Autumn_period


Or the warring states period that ensued

The Seven Warring States, refers to the seven leading states during the Warring States period (c. 475 to 221 BC) of ancient China: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Warring_States


Was a fairytale or fallacy?
User avatar
Nevets
Banned User
 
Name: steven gall
Posts: 368

Country: United Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Can someone with QM knowledge debunk this guy?

#46  Postby Spearthrower » Mar 09, 2020 5:27 pm

Nevets wrote:
So you want an example of how the bible can be used for non religious purposes?


Where and in what way did I ever suggest to you that I wanted this?

Cite the words I wrote that made you believe I wanted you to give me an example of how the Bible can be used for non-religious purposes.

Also, perhaps read the post you're replying to in which I already gave an example of reading the Bible for a non-religious purpose, namely to understand what Christians believe.

Again, you're not addressing the actual contention. There is no relevance whatsoever in using a term from the Bible when talking about modern physics.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27954
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Can someone with QM knowledge debunk this guy?

#47  Postby Spearthrower » Mar 09, 2020 5:29 pm

An Atheist may have equally extreme views on the bible being used for any purpose, which is why Atheism is as much a hinderance, and equally as small minded, as Christianity.


Presumably then, you're superior to both of them! :)

And again, you really do need to check your assumptions. Where did I say I'm an atheist? Did you read my signature? It expressly says "I'm not an atheist" - so it's funny how you keep trying to imply that I am... and that is strongly associated with a certain type of person in my experience.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27954
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Can someone with QM knowledge debunk this guy?

#48  Postby Hermit » Mar 09, 2020 5:29 pm

Nevets wrote:Atheism makes the mistake of thinking that enlightenment is about coming to the realisation that Jesus is a myth, and everything else is the proverbial.

Huh? Where exactly is the mistake in not believing in things for which there is no evidence?
God is the mysterious veil under which we hide our ignorance of the cause. - Léo Errera


God created the universe
God just exists
User avatar
Hermit
 
Name: Cantankerous grump
Posts: 4386
Age: 67
Male

Print view this post

Re: Can someone with QM knowledge debunk this guy?

#49  Postby Spearthrower » Mar 09, 2020 5:29 pm

Atheism makes the mistake of thinking that enlightenment is about coming to the realisation that Jesus is a myth, and everything else is the proverbial.


Support your assertion.

I've never heard any definition of atheism include this, nor have I ever heard an atheist make this claim.

So it looks like a strawman to me. Prove me wrong.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27954
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Can someone with QM knowledge debunk this guy?

#50  Postby laklak » Mar 09, 2020 5:52 pm

Atheists do this, atheists do that. Hogwash. "Atheists" aren't a monolithic bloc, there's no dogma associated with atheism, there's no Holy Book, no Pope, no Elders, no prayer leaders. In my experience only theists and others incapable of independent thought characterize atheists as an organized group with a common belief structure. It just ain't so, Joe, and that's a stone fact.
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way. - Mark Twain
The sky is falling! The sky is falling! - Chicken Little
I never go without my dinner. No one ever does, except vegetarians and people like that - Oscar Wilde
User avatar
laklak
RS Donator
 
Name: Florida Man
Posts: 20878
Age: 67
Male

Country: The Great Satan
Swaziland (sz)
Print view this post

Re: Can someone with QM knowledge debunk this guy?

#51  Postby Nevets » Mar 09, 2020 6:18 pm

Spearthrower wrote:
Atheism makes the mistake of thinking that enlightenment is about coming to the realisation that Jesus is a myth, and everything else is the proverbial.


Support your assertion.

.


Religious (over opinionated belief regarding authenticity of bible, and make horrible threats to non believers)< Unreligious (Ones personal belief is a secret. May share a little, may not. Not too fussed what others believe.) > Irreligious (Over opinionated belief in the lack of authenticity of the bible. Usually actively mocking towards believers)

Theist

Theism is broadly defined as the belief in the existence of a Supreme Being or
deities .https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism


Non theist

Nontheism or non-theism is a range of both religious and nonreligious attitudes characterized by the absence of espoused belief in a God or gods. Nontheism has generally been used to describe apathy or silence towards the subject of God and differs from an antithetical, explicit atheism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontheism


Atheist

Atheism is, in the broadest sense, an absence of belief in the existence of deities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism


Non theism rejects Atheism the same as it rejects Theism.
Atheism is not the samething as nontheism.

It is up to you yourself to work out why.
Last edited by Nevets on Mar 09, 2020 6:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Nevets
Banned User
 
Name: steven gall
Posts: 368

Country: United Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Can someone with QM knowledge debunk this guy?

#52  Postby campermon » Mar 09, 2020 6:21 pm

laklak wrote:Atheists do this, atheists do that. Hogwash. "Atheists" aren't a monolithic bloc, there's no dogma associated with atheism, there's no Holy Book, no Pope, no Elders, no prayer leaders. In my experience only theists and others incapable of independent thought characterize atheists as an organized group with a common belief structure. It just ain't so, Joe, and that's a stone fact.


That's great advice laklak.

Perhaps we should write it down into a book for future generations of atheists or sumfink :ask:
Last edited by campermon on Mar 09, 2020 6:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Scarlett and Ironclad wrote:Campermon,...a middle aged, middle class, Guardian reading, dad of four, knackered hippy, woolly jumper wearing wino and science teacher.
User avatar
campermon
RS Donator
 
Posts: 17437
Age: 51
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Can someone with QM knowledge debunk this guy?

#53  Postby Spearthrower » Mar 09, 2020 6:21 pm

Nevets wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:
Atheism makes the mistake of thinking that enlightenment is about coming to the realisation that Jesus is a myth, and everything else is the proverbial.


Support your assertion.

.


Religious (over opinionated belief regarding authenticity of bible, and make horrible threats to non believers)< Unreligious (Ones personal belief is a secret. May share a little, may not. Not too fussed what others believe.) > Irreligious (Over opinionated belief in the lack of authenticity of the bible. Usually actively mocking towards believers)

Theist

Theism is broadly defined as the belief in the existence of a Supreme Being or
deities .https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism


Non theist

Nontheism or non-theism is a range of both religious and nonreligious attitudes characterized by the absence of espoused belief in a God or gods. Nontheism has generally been used to describe apathy or silence towards the subject of God and differs from an antithetical, explicit atheism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontheism


Atheist

Atheism is, in the broadest sense, an absence of belief in the existence of deities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism


Non theistm reject Atheistm the same as it reject Theism.
Atheism is not the samething as nontheism.

It is up to you yourself to work out why.




In other words, you can't support your assertion; consequently it is dismissed.


Oh and...

Sponge

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sponge_(tool)

A sponge is a tool or cleaning aid made of soft, porous material. Typically used for cleaning impervious surfaces, sponges are especially good at absorbing water and water-based solutions.



Tuesday

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuesday

Tuesday is the day of the week between Monday and Wednesday.



Price of fish

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What%27s_ ... _the...%3F

"What's that got to do with the...?" is an expression denoting an irrelevance or non sequitur in the current discussion.

A common form, what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?, is a retort to an irrelevant suggestion.[1] This facetious usage implies that the topic under discussion might as well be the price of tea in China for all the relevance the speaker's suggestion bears on it.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27954
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Can someone with QM knowledge debunk this guy?

#54  Postby Nevets » Mar 09, 2020 6:36 pm

Spearthrower wrote:



In other words, you can't support your assertion; consequently it is dismissed.


I can attempt an example.

It is a leap of faith to assume knowledge of God, without knowledge of God.
It is an equal leap of faith to assume that having knowledge no God exists, has anything to do with "knowledge".

Nontheism is not about knowledge.
Enlightenment is not about knowledge.
It is about character.
Neither imposing, nor opposing.
Knowledge is something all three groups lack.
And having the ability to believe in God is hardly revelational.
Also having the ability to conceive that there may be no god, and jesus is a myth, is hardly a revelation worthy of anything more than, wow, aren't you a clever boy, give him a cooky.
Last edited by Nevets on Mar 09, 2020 6:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Nevets
Banned User
 
Name: steven gall
Posts: 368

Country: United Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Can someone with QM knowledge debunk this guy?

#55  Postby newolder » Mar 09, 2020 6:41 pm

Is it time for the non-QM stuff to be split off somewhere else, please?
I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops. - Stephen J. Gould
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 7320
Age: 1
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Can someone with QM knowledge debunk this guy?

#56  Postby Nevets » Mar 09, 2020 6:47 pm

newolder wrote:Is it time for the non-QM stuff to be split off somewhere else, please?


But Quantum Mechanics is, at its roots, about physical matter and how it came in to existence at the beginning of time.

Quantum mechanics (QM; also known as quantum physics, quantum theory, the wave mechanical model, or matrix mechanics), including quantum field theory, is a fundamental theory in physics describing the properties of nature https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics


And Quantum mechanics is based upon theory, it has no Scientific explanation for how the laws of nature were drawn up, nor how matter was formed.

Are you unaware that this is what Quantum mechanics is?
User avatar
Nevets
Banned User
 
Name: steven gall
Posts: 368

Country: United Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Can someone with QM knowledge debunk this guy?

#57  Postby campermon » Mar 09, 2020 6:52 pm

Nevets wrote:
newolder wrote:Is it time for the non-QM stuff to be split off somewhere else, please?


But Quantum Mechanics is, at its roots, about physical matter and how it came in to existence at the beginning of time.

Quantum mechanics (QM; also known as quantum physics, quantum theory, the wave mechanical model, or matrix mechanics), including quantum field theory, is a fundamental theory in physics describing the properties of nature https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics


Are you certain about that? :ask:
Scarlett and Ironclad wrote:Campermon,...a middle aged, middle class, Guardian reading, dad of four, knackered hippy, woolly jumper wearing wino and science teacher.
User avatar
campermon
RS Donator
 
Posts: 17437
Age: 51
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Can someone with QM knowledge debunk this guy?

#58  Postby Spearthrower » Mar 09, 2020 6:58 pm

Nevets wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:



In other words, you can't support your assertion; consequently it is dismissed.


I can attempt an example.

It is a leap of faith to assume knowledge of God, without knowledge of God.
It is an equal leap of faith to assume that having knowledge no God exists, has anything to do with "knowledge".

Nontheism is not about knowledge.
Enlightenment is not about knowledge.
It is about character.
Neither imposing, nor opposing.
Knowledge is something all three groups lack.
And having the ability to believe in God is hardly revelational.
Also having the ability to conceive that there may be no god, and jesus is a myth, is hardly a revelation worthy of anything more than, wow, aren't you a clever boy, give him a cooky.




Not sure if you've forgotten, but your original claim - the one I am asking you to support - was this...

Nevets wrote:Atheism makes the mistake of thinking that enlightenment is about coming to the realisation that Jesus is a myth, and everything else is the proverbial.


So to support this, you need to show sources corroborating your claim, not just you riffing in free association on words.

How are you supposed to know what atheists think about the Enlightenment? Are you referring to a survey? Share that survey. If you do not have such a survey, on what are you basing your claims? Your beliefs? Your instinct? Your experience with atheists? Or is it just mindless prejudice?


Incidentally, the idea that there is no god, that the Jesus story wasn't actually true actually was a revelation, if for nothing else than the ability to say it publicly which is still a recent occurrence in many nations, even the UK. There are plenty of parts of the world where such an expression would leave you socially stigmatized, perhaps up for blasphemy in court, and may even see you and your family threatened with harm or death.

So perhaps worth a little more than a cooky (sic).
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27954
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: Can someone with QM knowledge debunk this guy?

#59  Postby Nevets » Mar 09, 2020 6:58 pm

campermon wrote:
Nevets wrote:
newolder wrote:Is it time for the non-QM stuff to be split off somewhere else, please?


But Quantum Mechanics is, at its roots, about physical matter and how it came in to existence at the beginning of time.

Quantum mechanics (QM; also known as quantum physics, quantum theory, the wave mechanical model, or matrix mechanics), including quantum field theory, is a fundamental theory in physics describing the properties of nature https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics


Are you certain about that? :ask:


Well what do you think Quantum Mechanics is?
User avatar
Nevets
Banned User
 
Name: steven gall
Posts: 368

Country: United Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Can someone with QM knowledge debunk this guy?

#60  Postby Spearthrower » Mar 09, 2020 7:02 pm

Nevets wrote:
And Quantum mechanics is based upon theory, it has no Scientific explanation for how the laws of nature were drawn up, nor how matter was formed.


Ahh I see.

It's just a theory. Amirite?


Nevets wrote:Are you unaware that this is what Quantum mechanics is?


I know very little about Quantum Mechanics, but still enough to know that the idea that it's 'based upon theory' contains nonsense, therefore meaning that this is not what Quantum Mechanics is despite the confidence with which you've phrased your declaration.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 27954
Age: 44
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to General Debunking

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest