+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 16 of 33

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    6,872

    Statistics: Atheist Blindside

    Numerous times I have referenced statistics as an argument against elements of evolution (Origin of species) where arguments are spurious with respect to outcomes. When I've quoted studies based on statistics, I've either been insulted or dismissed as stupid. Whose stupid? Statistics can't be ignored.

    If you ignore statistics when proclaiming victory for "evolution," you are being "intellectually dishonest." Atheist must be objective in their claims or else admit their claims are not scientifically based.

    As an example, when applying probability statistics to the human eye, serious questions arise as to the possibility of it occurring by chance alone. There are numerous other examples of scientific claims that must be predicated on "laws of probability" such as physical laws, value constants, cells, organisms, etc.

    Probability statistics is the key for refuting arguments against God.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    10

    Re: Statistics: Atheist Blindside

    And within your statistics did you count other planets in them, too?
    We know of a lot of planets on which life didn't develop like here.
    Interestingly those are seeming to be more than planets on which life developed. Which statistically makes complete sense.
    Oh and please explain us how came up with a figure.
    Do you know the exact rate of mutation of every living being?
    Even those of animals, plants, fungus, bacteria and other microbes that weren't discovered, yet?


    About the eye:
    Of course it just didn't pop out there.
    It DEVELOPED... slow step after slow step.
    First it could just detect light on a straight area.
    Then this area invaginated so not all of it is shined with light and the direction it comes from can be detected.
    At the next stage they could the lightintensity could be detected.
    Chromatic vision was introduced, lenses to focus on objects.
    Each and every step came useful to the species adapting it and so it passed on through the generations.


    As for the rest... I've never seen a detailed calculation of the chances. How about you present just one decent one?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    5,324

    Re: Statistics: Atheist Blindside

    Because you haven't applied statistics. All you've ever done is say:

    "Bu... bu... bu... but statistics!!"

    Do a serious mathematical analysis, and maybe someone will listen to you. Do not start from the assumption of chemical and thermal equilibrium, and maybe someone will listen to you. Do not disregard the theory of evolution in order to apply statistics to the theory of evolution, and maybe someone will listen to you. Do not work out the probabilities of something evolution does not claim, and maybe someone will listen to you.

    In other words, statistics are applied to evolution all the time. Learn something about statistics, how to use them, how not to use them, and how to apply them to evolution.... and then maybe someone will listen to you.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    6,872

    Re: Statistics: Atheist Blindside

    kazza

    Because you haven't applied statistics. All you've ever done is say:

    "Bu... bu... bu... but statistics!!"

    Do a serious mathematical analysis, and maybe someone will listen to you. Do not start from the assumption of chemical and thermal equilibrium, and maybe someone will listen to you. Do not disregard the theory of evolution in order to apply statistics to the theory of evolution, and maybe someone will listen to you. Do not work out the probabilities of something evolution does not claim, and maybe someone will listen to you.

    In other words, statistics are applied to evolution all the time. Learn something about statistics, how to use them, how not to use them, and how to apply them to evolution.... and then maybe someone will listen to you.
    Sounds like a good speech. We've been down this road before. I posted scientific research months ago that included probability outcomes for areas mentioned. I refuse to waste my time doing it again. I recall blast, blast, how stupid I was to quote them. I don't expect to get a fair trial in a Kangaroo court. I just think all you atheist should be held accountable. You of all people should know what I'm talking about, instead you joined the lynch mob.

    Don't tell me those studies don't exist. There about statistical probabilities for all those variable matrices mentioned. It depends on whose side your on? If you dispute claims made by evolutionist based on statistical data you're wrong. If you make statements unsupported by statistical reliability (levels of significance), it's okay if your an atheist.

    Don't lecture me about statistical applications. My graduate degree includes research methodology and I've published research. That's why I am fed up with stupid claims made by atheist about evolutionary links that are purely speculative.
    Last edited by Cnance; 08-11-2010 at 01:51 PM.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    10

    Re: Statistics: Atheist Blindside

    Quote Originally Posted by Cnance View Post
    Sounds like a good speech. We've been down this road before. I posted scientific research months ago that included probability outcomes for areas mentioned. I refuse to waste my time doing it again. I recall blast, blast, how stupid I was to quote them. I don't expect to get a fair trial in a Kangaroo court. I just think all you atheist should be held accountable. You of all people should know what I'm talking about, instead you joined the lynch mob.

    Don't tell me those studies don't exist. There about statistical probabilities for all those variable matrices mentioned. It depends on whose side your on? If you dispute claims made by evolutionist based on statistical data you're wrong. If you make statements unsupported by statistical reliability (levels of significance), it's okay if your an atheist.

    Don't lecture me about statistical applications. My graduate degree includes research methodology and I've published research. That's why I am fed up with stupid claims made by atheist about evolutionary links that are purely speculative.

    If you are not willing to do the maths I guess I can safely assume that the outcome would not matter anyways.

    Also you can say all you want about you being a researcher, but that really doesn't matter. Could be true could be false, without prove that doesn't make sense.

    And last but not least:
    You are fed up with mere speculative statements?
    That is somewhat pretty funny, cause the only thing YOU are doing is speculate god exists. You have NO evidence at all, you have NO prove at all.
    If you belief what the bible says without questioning it, you are obviously escaping the question whether all of this could just be mere human ideas.
    If faith comes in, you are dismissed from the discussion, as faith has not the least bit to do with logical prove and evidence

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    2,424

    Re: Statistics: Atheist Blindside

    Quote Originally Posted by Cnance View Post
    Sounds like a good speech. We've been down this road before. I posted scientific research months ago that included probability outcomes for areas mentioned. I refuse to waste my time doing it again. I recall blast, blast, how stupid I was to quote them. I don't expect to get a fair trial in a Kangaroo court. I just think all you atheist should be held accountable. You of all people should know what I'm talking about, instead you joined the lynch mob.
    Actually I believe they laughed at you for posting a discovery institute member. That had been thoughly debunked. It's easy to come up with statics. What is hard is coming up with correct assumptions. The ones you used assumed EVERYTHING in your favour and ignored several aspects of reality and biology.

    Don't tell me those studies don't exist. There about statistical probabilities for all those variable matrices mentioned. It depends on whose side your on? If you dispute claims made by evolutionist based on statistical data you're wrong. If you make statements unsupported by statistical reliability (levels of significance), it's okay if your an atheist.
    and If you dispute claims made by holy than art engelicals who has dreams your an athiest.

    WHO THE FUCK SAID THAT UNDERSTANDING EVOLUTION MAKES YOU AN ATHIEST.

    Your the one that keeps removing people from your religion. I'm sorry if that is rude but i'm really getting annoyed at this idea and I think more christians should tell off the creationists for trying to remove them from the religion.

    As to level of significance. That requires data to compare stuff too. You don't have it all we have are assumptions. Afterall no-one has been around for 4 billion years in order to collect it. There are just assumptions. Some more reasonably based than others. That's why they call it a theory

    It just happens that Evolution, ambogenis and the big bang answer more questions about the universe than any other theory. While creatinists answer every question with because god did it. God could have done it but that doesn't help anyone with anything. The real beuty is to figure out how god did it and not answer every question with because.

    Don't lecture me about statistical applications. My graduate degree includes research methodology and I've published research. That's why I am fed up with stupid claims made by atheist about evolutionary links that are purely speculative.
    With respect what was you degree in? Because appeartly you forgot how to apply it or you have no knowledge applicable to the subject in order the judge it.

    Because so far you still havn't figured out the difference between evolution, ambigenises or the big bang.

    And you appear to be still stuck on the idea that life has to end up exactly as it is now in order for the stats to be true.

    Than there is the matter of scale. 43 billion years*infinate million universes*1 billion planets. However, that only applies to the theory of ambogenises.

  7. #7
    LogicallyYours's Avatar
    LogicallyYours is offline Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings.
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,352

    Re: Statistics: Atheist Blindside

    Quote Originally Posted by Cnance View Post
    Numerous times I have referenced statistics as an argument against elements of evolution (Origin of species) where arguments are spurious with respect to outcomes. When I've quoted studies based on statistics, I've either been insulted or dismissed as stupid. Whose stupid? Statistics can't be ignored.

    If you ignore statistics when proclaiming victory for "evolution," you are being "intellectually dishonest." Atheist must be objective in their claims or else admit their claims are not scientifically based.

    As an example, when applying probability statistics to the human eye, serious questions arise as to the possibility of it occurring by chance alone. There are numerous other examples of scientific claims that must be predicated on "laws of probability" such as physical laws, value constants, cells, organisms, etc.

    Probability statistics is the key for refuting arguments against God.
    What a load of crap. The creationist disingenuous "probability" argument has been debunked by many....many times. Ken Miller has a great debunking of this bullshit and, Oh by the way, Ken Miller is a man of faith...so there goes your other bullshit argument.

    Jason Rosenhouse also has addressed this failed argument.
    "Religion is a heavy suitcase: all you have to do is put it down."
    -----------------------------------------------------------
    "I have read the bible...more than once. I was not impressed nor was I so moved to give up my ability to think for myself and surrender my knowledge of facts for the unfounded belief in a mythical sky-fairy." - Me.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    27,212

    Re: Statistics: Atheist Blindside

    atheism depends on the "DUMB N' DUMBER" statistical advantage!? 1 in a quadrazillion!? "you mean there's a chance"!? ironically, this depends on god-like optimism!? i mean no sane person would risk his future on such odds!? but as hindsight it will do just fine!? :cwm2: :spin2: : :
    i do not endorse/recommend any advertising on scam.com associated with my name /posts or otherwise. thank you

  9. #9
    LogicallyYours's Avatar
    LogicallyYours is offline Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings.
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    6,352

    Re: Statistics: Atheist Blindside

    Quote Originally Posted by lexx View Post
    atheism depends on the "DUMB N' DUMBER" statistical advantage!? 1 in a quadrazillion!? "you mean there's a chance"!? ironically, this depends on god-like optimism!? i mean no sane person would risk his future on such odds!? but as hindsight it will do just fine!? :cwm2: :spin2: : :
    I expected something smarter from you but, after your last couple of responses....I'm not all that surprised.


    This is just one response to Creationist/IDiots argument of probability.

    Figures don't Lie but Creationists Figure
    By Alec Grynspan

    Sun 9 Nov 97 15:39

    Figures don't Lie but Creationists Figure - By Alec Grynspan

    One of the Creationists' ploys has been to quote two Astrophysicists as if they were experts in biochemistry.

    Note that the 2 individuals in question (Hoyle and Wickramasinghe) have no problem with evolution itself and considered Creationists insane. They argue only that the ORIGIN of life, which is not part of evolutionary fact or theory, requires either a much older universe for Panspermia or that life needed a Creator to start.

    More background: Years ago Hoyle and Wickramasinghe postulated a steady-state universe and opposed the idea of the "big bang". As part of their attack on "big bang", which was rapidly winning ground over steady-state, they cooked up a "probability" for life to originate on Earth that was essentially impossible.

    To then cover the fact that life actually existed on Earth, they came up with the question-begging hypothesis of Panspermia. The result was that the origin of life was pushed further back. With the probability being so low, it would have taken trillions upon trillions of years for life to form using their concept.

    BUT - with a steady-state universe, a trillion zeroes in the probability equation would have had no effect on the end result, since the universe would have been eternal.

    Eventually, however, the steady onslaught of evidence for a "big bang" and against a steady-state universe forced Hoyle and Wickramasinghe to acquiesce.

    So they were stuck with their bogus equations. What to do?

    Well, if one postulated the existence of a creator, one eliminated the problem of the equations! One further undermined the concept of a non-created universe, giving them one more kick at the "big bang" cat.

    This "probability", combined with a distortion and misquotation of Dawkins, has actually been used as a claim by some extremely dishonest Creationists as the foundation of a scientific theory of Creation, even though it is nothing of the sort for other reasons.

    The flaw in the equations used by Hoyle and Wickramasinghe was that they used anonymous/non-anonymous atoms and, later, genetic sequences, to calculate the probability of a random assembly becoming a modern uni-cellular organism. The same tactic by Behe was used, via the debunked "irreducible complexity" approach, to derive a probability.

    But this method of applying probability is utterly dishonest.

    Let us take a simple example - table salt crystals.

    Table salt is made up of sodium and chlorine atoms, so let's start with a very small quantity (around 50 milligrams) of sodium and chlorine - around 10^20 atoms of each.

    Let's place these elements in a small container and mix it up.

    What is the probability of a sodium atom meeting a chlorine atom in this container?

    Answer: Virtually Unity.

    What is the probability of a *SPECIFIC* sodium atom meeting a *SPECIFIC* chlorine atom in this container?

    Answer: Once the sodium atom meets any OTHER chlorine atom, it is out of the picture. Similarly, once the chlorine atom meets any OTHER sodium atom, then IT is out of the picture.

    The probability of the specific atoms meeting each other?

    1 in 10^40.
    The probability of every single specific sodium atom meeting a specific chlorine atom?

    1 in 10^80. 1 with 80 zeroes after it.
    Once we have 10^20 salt molecules, what is the probability of any salt molecule linking to any other until we have a salt crystal?

    Answer: Unity.

    What are the chances of a SPECIFIC salt molecule meeting another SPECIFIC salt molecule? 1 in 10^20.

    Of all of them meeting like this? 1 in 10^40?

    Of that batch of Sodium and Chlorine making that crystal?

    1 in 10^120
    This is how Hoyle and Wickramasinghe and Behe established their probabilities - by using permutations and treating each component of the cell as a totally unique entity with no other properties prior to final assembly than staying where placed.

    Yet a pyridine molecule(for example) is the same wherever it is! Plus the properties of the variuos components REQUIRED that they have a constrained number of possible combinations.

    Further, all that we need is some form of self-replication molecule that can absorb other molecules in order to replicate and mutate - already verified to be able to form naturally (although many Creationists will quote 40-year-old editorial opinions as "proof" that it can't happen), plus the verified Dawkins effect to bring on evolution of the final form of that cell.

    Let's take another look at why this natural selection sequence, which creationists edit out when pretending to quote Dawkins, improves the probability to unity.

    1. Every time that natural selection causes that protoliferean form to *****e in any specific direction, all the possible directions that were possible at that time are lost from the "decision tree".

    2. Since the "probability" of that path was NOT equal to that of any of the others, it shouldn't be taken as such.
    The Hoyle/Wickramasinghe/Behe approach keeps these alternates as part of the probability equation and of equal weight.

    3. However, these alternates are not part of the total probability equation. They are paths that, even if they had equal weight are no longer part of the equation.
    Let us do a little back-of-the-envelope calculations.

    Let us presuppose that there were 10^6 mutations that caused 10^6 evolutionary bifurcations - with each alternative being of equal weight.

    That means that, when that primitive barely-life nucleic acid first started the sequence, the probability against the final result being a specific cellular structure would have been

    2^(10^6) or 2^1000000 or 10^300000 - 1 with THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND zeroes after it.
    But, at any bifurcation, the probability that SOME path would be taken is UNITY. Therefore the probability against life forming is:

    1 - 1^(10^6) or 1 - 1^1000000 or zero.
    In other words, the probability that modern life would form by random mutation with natural selection is

    UNITY.

    Note that this does not take into account the bifurcations where one of the paths is lethal (bad mutation). These would be dead ends and would reduce the probability against the current life form developing. The end result, however, cannot pass the limit of UNITY, so it can only affect the final form of life and not the probability.

    The argument of Hoyle/Wickramasinghe/Behe and probabilities is therefore debunked!

    With regard's to you invoking Pascal's Wager - prove there are only two options. If you can't, STFU>
    "Religion is a heavy suitcase: all you have to do is put it down."
    -----------------------------------------------------------
    "I have read the bible...more than once. I was not impressed nor was I so moved to give up my ability to think for myself and surrender my knowledge of facts for the unfounded belief in a mythical sky-fairy." - Me.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    61

    Re: Statistics: Atheist Blindside

    Statistics is the relationship between a sample size and a population.

    A god by definition is supernatural. There is no observed supernatural data.

    Of all the things that are observed (or even defined) to exist none are supernatural.

    In your sample size there is no supernatural data and therefore statistics dictate that you must infer that nothing supernatural exists in the population.

    Your god does not exist.

    Probability = a specific outcome / from a possible outcome. It will always sit between 0 and 1.

    The probability for your god is 1/0. In other words your god is impossible.

    It really is that simple.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cnance View Post
    Whose stupid?
    Indeed.
    The strong did what they could, and the weak suffered what they must. - Thucydides

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Glendale Az
    Posts
    1,249

    Re: Statistics: Atheist Blindside

    Quote Originally Posted by Vagon View Post
    Statistics is the relationship between a sample size and a population.

    A god by definition is supernatural. There is no observed supernatural data.

    Of all the things that are observed (or even defined) to exist none are supernatural.

    In your sample size there is no supernatural data and therefore statistics dictate that you must infer that nothing supernatural exists in the population.

    Your god does not exist.

    Probability = a specific outcome / from a possible outcome. It will always sit between 0 and 1.

    The probability for your god is 1/0. In other words your god is impossible.

    It really is that simple.



    Indeed.
    Very good post! Very left-brained but still very good. The God-believers are trying to deal with a right-brained concept in the left-brained world. Sort of like attempting to mix wat3r and oil....or hanging a real bucket on a shadow hook. What is confusing them is the decoding of their right-brained feelings.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    27,212

    Re: Statistics: Atheist Blindside

    Quote Originally Posted by Vagon View Post
    Statistics is the relationship between a sample size and a population.

    A god by definition is supernatural. There is no observed supernatural data.

    Of all the things that are observed (or even defined) to exist none are supernatural.

    In your sample size there is no supernatural data and therefore statistics dictate that you must infer that nothing supernatural exists in the population.

    Your god does not exist.

    Probability = a specific outcome / from a possible outcome. It will always sit between 0 and 1.

    The probability for your god is 1/0. In other words your god is impossible.

    It really is that simple.



    Indeed.
    it could be speculated that ALL data is supernatural!? a playing out of supernatural FORCES!? cause and effect!? the natural reflecting the combined result!?
    if god is the impossible then how can he exist!? because the impossible would include all things possible!? while the natural only includes all things known to be possible!? the difference can be said to be knowing,(within) and not knowing!?(without)
    is it possible to know of the impossible!? to know about the impossible!? of what possible use is this in-formation!? unless the impossible is an inner formation!? (MIND) this inner formation known as IMAGE/imaging!? imagination!? is man trapped into only imagining within the boundaries of the experienced and observed natural world!? can he imagine a whole different set of possibilities!? does the combined imagination of man = the natural as existence!? can the individual component be additive to an actual change in the natural!? can an impossibility by natural standards become the new natural standard thru combined imagination!? is there any probability of this happening!? what are the chances!? :freak3: :spin2: : :
    Last edited by lexx; 08-17-2010 at 09:37 PM.
    i do not endorse/recommend any advertising on scam.com associated with my name /posts or otherwise. thank you

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    61

    Re: Statistics: Atheist Blindside

    Quote Originally Posted by lexx View Post
    it could be speculated that ALL data is supernatural!? a playing out of supernatural FORCES!? cause and effect!? the natural reflecting the combined result!?[etc etc lots of exclamations, question marks and emoticons later])
    Firstly this post is about statistics, not metaphysics. Secondly you have missed the point.

    If you are discussing something supernatural (whatever you mean by that) then no natural form of measurement is useful. Statistics deals with natural phenomena.

    Even if we ignore statistics and go down your path of metaphysical discussion, your line of thought still fails. Reasoning itself deals with logic. When you try to reason for the supernatural you become hypocritic because the supernatural, by definition, is not reasonable.

    To put it another way, if you argue for irrationality, then there is no point in arguing at all. The value of your argument lies in its rationality.

    Quote Originally Posted by lexx View Post
    is it possible to know of the impossible!? to know about the impossible!? of what possible use is this in-formation!? unless the impossible is an inner formation!? (MIND) this inner formation known as IMAGE/imaging!? imagination!? is man trapped into only imagining within the boundaries of the experienced and observed natural world!? can he imagine a whole different set of possibilities!?..[etc etc lots of exclamations, question marks and emoticons later]
    Again you are borrowing from rationality to support an irrational concept. It doesn't work.

    The Seekers religious group is a good way to illustrate your failure. Enough people imagined Dorothy Martin (AKA Marian Keech) was correct and her "automatic writing" was a quasi-holy message forewarning a globally catastrophic flood. The collective imagination made the vast majority of her religious group give away possessions, quit jobs and leave loved ones. They collectively knew the supernatural flood was coming.

    Predictably the automatic writing and messages from above were imagined. Unfortunately for the religious group the reality was not a psuedo-Jesus-alien beaming them up, but the very real loss of material benefits.

    Your imagination is part of reality - the electronic signals in your neurons. Reality is not a part of your imagination.
    The strong did what they could, and the weak suffered what they must. - Thucydides

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Currently, Columbia, S.C., U.S. of A.
    Posts
    14

    Re: Statistics: Atheist Blindside

    Let me throw my two cents in the ring...

    God can't be proven, unless He comes down and shows us He is. The word "exist" is something of a misnomer, because only His creations could exist.

    Still, there are a lot of things that can't be proven... yet, they're accepted as "theory", because they can't be disproven, and they're reasonable to suspect. To deny there is a God, without proof of a better alternative, is the use of the confirmation bias. Do Christians use it? Some say yes; I compare our confidence to that a scientist has of his or her theory.

    Is the Bible itself totally inaccurate? No way. There is a lot of evidence for the claims of the Bible... some of it as recent as 2007. Does that mean it's divinely inspired? Maybe, maybe not... depending on the evidence. However, I'd think that it would be more important to non-believers to stick with what they know is true, regardless of any loosely-associated theories, than to throw the baby out with the bath-w a t e r, as so many tend to do.

    Why, then, do I follow Christianity? It's not necessarily because it's original. The most original thing about it, besides the fact that it's Savior was a historically real person, is that there is no elitist heirarchy inherent in Christianity by itself. It's because, in one way or another, I've come to realize that none of the claims of the Bible are inaccurate. I believe that, if something is true, it must lead to the right conclusion; which, in turn, must lead to a good consequence. That's why I believe in biblical Christianity: it leads to a good consequence, and can be proven - in many senses, if not all, - to be true.

    I'd be happy to discuss what evidence I know exists, but I'm not an apologist by trade. I'm more of an expert on what the Bible says, than how to prove it to non-believers.
    Last edited by angelsofhope2008; 08-24-2010 at 05:31 PM. Reason: The automatic editor put asterisks in the word, "bath *****", which make it's meaning unclear... edit: apparently, the word "w a t e r" is set as an unacceptable word.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Glendale Az
    Posts
    1,249

    Re: Statistics: Atheist Blindside

    Quote Originally Posted by lexx View Post
    it could be speculated that ALL data is supernatural!? a playing out of supernatural FORCES!? cause and effect!? the natural reflecting the combined result!?
    if god is the impossible then how can he exist!? because the impossible would include all things possible!? while the natural only includes all things known to be possible!? the difference can be said to be knowing,(within) and not knowing!?(without)
    is it possible to know of the impossible!? to know about the impossible!? of what possible use is this in-formation!? unless the impossible is an inner formation!? (MIND) this inner formation known as IMAGE/imaging!? imagination!? is man trapped into only imagining within the boundaries of the experienced and observed natural world!? can he imagine a whole different set of possibilities!? does the combined imagination of man = the natural as existence!? can the individual component be additive to an actual change in the natural!? can an impossibility by natural standards become the new natural standard thru combined imagination!? is there any probability of this happening!? what are the chances!? :freak3: :spin2: : :
    Sorry, lexx. Just another example of trying to hang a physical bucket onto a shadow hook....speculation works for Las Vegas.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    61

    Re: Statistics: Atheist Blindside

    Quote Originally Posted by angelsofhope2008 View Post
    God can't be proven, unless He comes down and shows us He is. The word "exist" is something of a misnomer, because only His creations could exist.
    Neither can Shiva, or unicorns for that matter. What is the value in this statement?

    Quote Originally Posted by angelsofhope2008 View Post
    Still, there are a lot of things that can't be proven... yet, they're accepted as "theory", because they can't be disproven, and they're reasonable to suspect.
    No. A theory is a framework of understanding around data and confirmation of that data. Theory is not merely reasonable suspicion. You're conflating hypothesis with theory.

    Quote Originally Posted by angelsofhope2008 View Post
    To deny there is a God, without proof of a better alternative, is the use of the confirmation bias.
    Rhetoric like "deny" presumes your god. You beg the question when you suggest an atheist lacks "a better alternative" or even seeks an alternative.

    An alternative god is not atheism, so I assume you mean an alternative explanation for some sort of phenomena. In no possible way is a god or goddess an alternative explanation for any phenomena. Instead claiming god is a lazy way of saying I don't know and lack either the time or the inclination to figure it out.

    Quote Originally Posted by angelsofhope2008 View Post
    Do Christians use it? Some say yes; I compare our confidence to that a scientist has of his or her theory.
    Everyone has confirmation bias, but do not conflate science with religion. Scientists (even religious ones) have developed a number of tools to remove bias from their work. Religion does no such thing. Ironically one such tool is modern statistics, the subject of this post and what you have failed to address.

    Quote Originally Posted by angelsofhope2008 View Post
    Is the Bible itself totally inaccurate? No way. There is a lot of evidence for the claims of the Bible... some of it as recent as 2007. Does that mean it's divinely inspired? Maybe, maybe not... depending on the evidence.
    The Illiad isn't completely inaccurate either. What is the value in this statement?

    Quote Originally Posted by angelsofhope2008 View Post
    However, I'd think that it would be more important to non-believers to stick with what they know is true, regardless of any loosely-associated theories, than to throw the baby out with the bath-w a t e r, as so many tend to do.
    To continue the Illiad example, that would be the same as assuming Achilles could only be killed by cutting his heel because we have evidence Troy existed.

    Quote Originally Posted by angelsofhope2008 View Post
    Why, then, do I follow Christianity? It's not necessarily because it's original. The most original thing about it, besides the fact that it's Savior was a historically real person, is that there is no elitist heirarchy inherent in Christianity by itself. It's because, in one way or another, I've come to realize that none of the claims of the Bible are inaccurate. I believe that, if something is true, it must lead to the right conclusion; which, in turn, must lead to a good consequence. That's why I believe in biblical Christianity: it leads to a good consequence, and can be proven - in many senses, if not all, - to be true.

    I'd be happy to discuss what evidence I know exists, but I'm not an apologist by trade. I'm more of an expert on what the Bible says, than how to prove it to non-believers.
    There's so much wrong with this that it'll will be more efficient to summarise:
    1. This is a Thread suggesting statistics work against atheism. This is not a thread on the historicity of your god/s or the elitism of whichever branch of your religion you belong to.
    2. Your personal anecdotes and beliefs, in the absence of data, are in no way statistical nor evidential. This puts your proclaimed knowledge under question.
    3. If you would like to preserve your reputation as a rational person and support the many, many naked assertions you've made you should create a new thread.
    The strong did what they could, and the weak suffered what they must. - Thucydides

Similar Threads

  1. Climate Change Statistics
    By Yawn... in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 12-17-2012, 01:42 PM
  2. Infidelity Statistics of Cheating Men/Women
    By rick77 in forum MLM Scams
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 11-07-2007, 06:05 PM
  3. Atheist Eve
    By SubJunk in forum Religious Scams
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 08-03-2006, 05:06 AM
  4. Statistics Aside, Many Feel Pinch of Daily Costs
    By sojustask in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-06-2006, 08:36 PM
  5. MLM articles and statistics
    By How Come? in forum MLM Scams
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 04-21-2006, 05:12 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •