Excess Superstition

[Berkshire]

9 hours ago, AYJAYDEE said:

If you declare something does not exist and you cannot prove it, then that is merely your opinion and we have no reason to accept it.

Your argument is rather disingenuous and I think you know it.  But let's put it to the test.  Do YOU believe that Santa Claus exists?  If not, prove it. 

[BritManToo]

6 minutes ago, Berkshire said:

Do YOU believe that Santa Claus exists?  If not, prove it. 

Do you believe god exists, women are equal, climate change is man made, the sea levels will rise?

It's all much of a muchness.

[BritManToo]

13 hours ago, The Deerhunter said:

In fact it is frequently said that belief in god and religion diminishes in direct ratio to ones level of education

Belief in 'spirits' diminishes with education, but is usually replaced by pseudo-scientific fantasies of some sort.

[mauGR1]

9 minutes ago, Berkshire said:

Your argument is rather disingenuous and I think you know it.  But let's put it to the test.  Do YOU believe that Santa Claus exists?  If not, prove it. 

Santa Claus exists, this is the proof

[ravip]

On 9/30/2018 at 11:14 AM, unamazedloso said:

absolute insanity. my neighbours are alot like this. Not a brain between them and they think we're evil because we dont believe in bs.

Due to this we are outcasts. Its a good thing because I dont want in a crazy cult. Maybe they will start sacrificing people soon.

Where on earth are you located at?

 

[mauGR1]

3 minutes ago, ravip said:

On 9/30/2018 at 12:44 PM, unamazedloso said:

absolute insanity. my neighbours are alot like this. Not a brain between them and they think we're evil because we dont believe in bs.

Due to this we are outcasts. Its a good thing because I dont want in a crazy cult. Maybe they will start sacrificing people soon.

Where on earth are you located at? 

 

Must be that infamous, ominous location, Nakhon Nowhere????

[attrayant]

9 hours ago, AYJAYDEE said:

If you declare something does not exist...

 

I'm going to stop you right there, because I wouldn't declare that something does not exist unless its existence would violate known laws of nature.  This is how we know free energy devices don't exist.  If somebody claims that such a thing exists, it's up to them to provide evidence.

 

9 hours ago, AYJAYDEE said:

and you cannot prove it, then that is merely your opinion and we have no reason to accept it.

 

Which is why people need to stop claiming, without evidence, that deity X exists, fairy rings exist, karma exists and so on.  This is Hitchens's razor: "Whatever is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".

[AYJAYDEE]

2 hours ago, Berkshire said:

Your argument is rather disingenuous and I think you know it.  But let's put it to the test.  Do YOU believe that Santa Claus exists?  If not, prove it. 

Say

ing I dont believe he exists is much different from saying he definitely doesnt exist

[AYJAYDEE]

2 hours ago, attrayant said:

 

I'm going to stop you right there, because I wouldn't declare that something does not exist unless its existence would violate known laws of nature.  This is how we know free energy devices don't exist.  If somebody claims that such a thing exists, it's up to them to provide evidence.

 

 

Which is why people need to stop claiming, without evidence, that deity X exists, fairy rings exist, karma exists and so on.  This is Hitchens's razor: "Whatever is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".

and yet some people DO say that god definitely does Not exist.. and known laws of nature have turned out not to be laws after all.

[owl sees all]

A god. Which one. No way; unless someone has evidence.

 

I saw a 100 metre high elephant once. I would not have believed it unless it I saw it with my own eyes. Trampling on buildings and uprooting telegraph poles. And I have proof.

 

10 minutes ago, AYJAYDEE said:

Say

ing I dont believe he exists is much different from saying he definitely doesnt exist

 

[AYJAYDEE]

Just now, owl sees all said:

A god. Which one. No way; unless someone has evidence.

 

I saw a 100 metre high elephant once. I would not have believed it unless it I saw it with my own eyes. Trampling on buildings and uprooting telegraph poles. And I have proof.

 

 

I havent seen any gods

 

[owl sees all]

9 minutes ago, AYJAYDEE said:

I havent seen any gods

 

Nor me. But I have seen a 100 metre tall elephant, and I don't worship it.

[AYJAYDEE]

Just now, owl sees all said:

Nor me. But I have seen a 100 metre tall elephant, and I don't worship it.

i dont worship

 

[spidermike007]

On 9/29/2018 at 10:44 PM, unamazedloso said:

absolute insanity. my neighbours are alot like this. Not a brain between them and they think we're evil because we dont believe in bs.

Due to this we are outcasts. Its a good thing because I dont want in a crazy cult. Maybe they will start sacrificing people soon.

 

There is a reason why many of us just do not care what others think of us. It means nothing. Imagine being concerned of what a highly superstitious person thinks of you? It is beyond irrelevant. Less than zero. Nothing at all. Sometimes being an outcast is a badge of honor, and a sign that you are doing things right. Keep up the good work!

[HappyAndRich]

On ‎9‎/‎28‎/‎2018 at 12:36 PM, Maybole said:

Logic fails me

Welcome to Thailand.

[attrayant]

23 minutes ago, AYJAYDEE said:

and yet some people DO say that god definitely does Not exist..

 

Unless any of those people are here, then you're setting up a straw man and expecting me to knock it down.   I'm not going to debate people by proxy, so please give up the "some people say" line.

 

 

23 minutes ago, AYJAYDEE said:

and known laws of nature have turned out not to be laws after all.

 

Really?  Which laws would those be?  Are you confusing a law with a theory?  Scientific theories get updated and improved all the time as new information comes in.  Darwin's theories of natural selection have been updated, modified and parts have been disproved when it was found they didn't fit the observed evidence. But (to bring this back on topic) at no time has a well-established, evidence-based theory been discarded in favor of some supernatural explanation.

 

The scientific method does not guarantee that mistakes won't be made, but it does guarantee that they'll be corrected as technology improves and better evidence comes along.

[BritManToo]

15 minutes ago, spidermike007 said:

Imagine being concerned of what a highly superstitious person thinks of you?

Many of us are sleeping with Thai women.

[AYJAYDEE]

5 minutes ago, attrayant said:

 

Unless any of those people are here, then you're setting up a straw man and expecting me to knock it down.   I'm not going to debate people by proxy, so please give up the "some people say" line.

 

 

 

Really?  Which laws would those be?  Are you confusing a law with a theory?  Scientific theories get updated and improved all the time as new information comes in.  Darwin's theories of natural selection have been updated, modified and parts have been disproved when it was found they didn't fit the observed evidence. But (to bring this back on topic) at no time has a well-established, evidence-based theory been discarded in favor of some supernatural explanation.

 

The scientific method does not guarantee that mistakes won't be made, but it does guarantee that they'll be corrected as technology improves and better evidence comes along.

I dont expect anything of you. I simply said, some scientists have said god definitely does not exist. and keplers laws have turned out to be a pretty good approximation of planetary motion but in fact are not completely correct

 

[NCC1701A]

On 9/28/2018 at 5:36 PM, Maybole said:

Logic fails me.

I have days where all day long doing the simplest things are "blocked" by unseen forces. 

 

so I just wait till tomorrow when they want me to do it.

 

 

Edited November 2, 2018 by NCC1701A

[attrayant]

7 minutes ago, AYJAYDEE said:

keplers laws have turned out to be a pretty good approximation of planetary motion but in fact are not completely correct

 

They were, as you note, merely approximations rather than laws - at least not as we use the term today because they weren't supported my mathematical proofs.  Science was in its infancy and the term "law" wasn't even in use until the mid 1700s.  His "laws" were derived from observational data and, while observationally correct, were more like rules of thumb. A century later, Newton's law of universal gravitation allowed us to accurately calculate and predict planetary motion.  Kepler's "laws" are now a part of science history.

Scientific laws are mathematical proofs about the way nature works, like ballistic motion or magnetic force.  They describe the observation in mathematical terms.  Any future observation must act in accordance with the law.  Laws don't explain why a particular phenomenon exists or what causes it (that's what a theory is for). A scientific law is the highest form of proof we have, and it's the only thing better than a scientific theory.

 

Insofar as the current topic (superstition) is concerned, I think we should concentrate on theories rather than laws.

 

[AYJAYDEE]

2 minutes ago, attrayant said:

 

They were, as you note, merely approximations rather than laws - at least not as we use the term today because they weren't supported my mathematical proofs.  Science was in its infancy and the term "law" wasn't even in use until the mid 1700s.  His "laws" were derived from observational data and, while observationally correct, were more like rules of thumb. A century later, Newton's law of universal gravitation allowed us to accurately calculate and predict planetary motion.  Kepler's "laws" are now a part of science history.

Scientific laws are mathematical proofs about the way nature works, like ballistic motion or magnetic force.  They describe the observation in mathematical terms.  Any future observation must act in accordance with the law.  Laws don't explain why a particular phenomenon exists or what causes it (that's what a theory is for). A scientific law is the highest form of proof we have, and it's the only thing better than a scientific theory.

 

Insofar as the current topic (superstition) is concerned, I think we should concentrate on theories rather than laws.

 

what a load! lol. they were accepted by science as LAWS. As were Newtons LAWS (later refuted by Einstein) 

[attrayant]

We can not use Kepler's "laws" to plan a mission to the moon.  They are observational, not mathematically based.  They are ancient history.

 

[edit] Wiki has a paragraph on the nomenclature and describes how Kepler's observations took two centuries to become "laws" (my bolding):
 

"It took nearly two centuries for the current formulation of Kepler's work to take on its settled form. Voltaire's Eléments de la philosophie de Newton (Elements of Newton's Philosophy) of 1738 was the first publication to use the terminology of "laws". The Biographical Encyclopedia of Astronomers in its article on Kepler states that the terminology of scientific laws for these discoveries was current at least from the time of Joseph de Lalande. It was the exposition of Robert Small, in An account of the astronomical discoveries of Kepler (1814) that made up the set of three laws, by adding in the third. Small also claimed, against the history, that these were empirical laws, based on inductive reasoning.

 

Further, the current usage of "Kepler's Second Law" is something of a misnomer. Kepler had two versions, related in a qualitative sense: the "distance law" and the "area law". The "area law" is what became the Second Law in the set of three; but Kepler did himself not privilege it in that way."

 

 

 

 

Edited November 2, 2018 by attrayant

[AYJAYDEE]

1 minute ago, attrayant said:

We can not use Kepler's "laws" to plan a mission to the moon.  They are observational, not mathematically based.  They are ancient history.

and yet science considered them laws. lol and then they considered newtons work as laws. ad infinitum. and quantum entanglement will tear down E=MC2

 

[owl sees all]

8 minutes ago, AYJAYDEE said:

what a load! lol. they were accepted by science as LAWS. As were Newtons LAWS (later refuted by Einstein) 

Even Einstein had problems getting his theory of general relativity accepted by the scientific community. He actually amended the data before proof was forthcoming.

[attrayant]

3 minutes ago, AYJAYDEE said:

and yet science considered them laws

 

Who are you referring to when you personify "science"?

[AYJAYDEE]

Just now, attrayant said:

 

Who are you referring to when you personify "science"?

youre swinging wildly now pal! lol

[attrayant]

2 minutes ago, AYJAYDEE said:

youre swinging wildly now pal! lol

 

Science says I'm not.  There, I can make the same nonsense statements as you.

 

And this shows how you misconstrue the improvements we make using the tool of science:
 

7 minutes ago, owl sees all said:

As were Newtons LAWS (later refuted by Einstein)

 

Einstein's work on relativity did not disprove or refute Newton's law of universal gravitation.  They improved upon it; they put a finer point on it.

[CharlieH]

You are getting way off topic here. 

Back to "superstition" please.

[owl sees all]

Quote

 14 minutes ago, owl sees all said:
As were Newtons LAWS (later refuted by Einstein)

 

Quote

Einstein's work on relativity did not disprove or refute Newton's law of universal gravitation.  They improved upon it; they put a finer point on it.

 Don't disagree with you Attrayant. Just that you have got your posters in a muddle.
 
 

[mauGR1]

"A friend was visiting in the home of Nobel Prize winner Niels Bohr, the famous atom scientist.

As they were talking, the friend kept glancing at a horseshoe hanging over the door. Finally, unable to contain his curiosity any longer, he demanded:

“Niels, it can’t possibly be that you, a brilliant scientist, believe that foolish horseshoe superstition! ? !”

“Of course not,” replied the scientist. “But I understand it’s lucky whether you believe in it or not.”