best arguments against religion (no theists)
- Thread starter cato
- Start date
well ten degrees is 100 000 000 microkelvins.
It certainly sounds like semantics if one is trying to play "give or take one hundred million" as the grounds for being accurate
:shrug:
LG - you're just playing with words - given that not even the most accurate systems we have can measure anything "accurately"... there is always some margin of error.
While I did not show how it could be measured with infinite degrees of accuracy - the principle still applies, and reasonable levels of accuracy can be achieved... and your fallacious logic of using such a trivial objection as a counter against the principles is rather transparent.
Furthermore, while I have also shown how such can be achieved, you fail to address to the matter of religion being seemingly unable to show how it is even supposed to be the right tool. Demonstrate the principles involved, how the tool works, what it measures... :shrug: Heck, it doesn't even need to be to particularly high degrees of accuracy - just explain the principles.
But then we're obviously not using the right tools to assess religion - yet you can not provide us with the right tools with which to assess it, and instead you require one to believe in order to believe.
Hey ho.
While I did not show how it could be measured with infinite degrees of accuracy - the principle still applies, and reasonable levels of accuracy can be achieved... and your fallacious logic of using such a trivial objection as a counter against the principles is rather transparent.
Furthermore, while I have also shown how such can be achieved, you fail to address to the matter of religion being seemingly unable to show how it is even supposed to be the right tool. Demonstrate the principles involved, how the tool works, what it measures... :shrug: Heck, it doesn't even need to be to particularly high degrees of accuracy - just explain the principles.
But then we're obviously not using the right tools to assess religion - yet you can not provide us with the right tools with which to assess it, and instead you require one to believe in order to believe.
Hey ho.
Last edited:
hence tape measures have one use and thermometers another and never the twain shall meet (at least as far as the pursuit of accuracy goes)
I'm not talking about infinite degrees.
I am talking about give or take 100 000 000 microkelvins.
No you didn't
Your use of tape measures is highly inaccurate, at least by the the standard of thermometers.
If you can't concede that a tape measure is completely the wrong tool for accurate measurement of temperature I'm afraid you won't understand much on the subject ....
Last edited:
On the contrary trying to play 100 000 000 as a marginal figure is a text book case of the (duplicitous) use of semantics ... an obvious ploy to prevent the discussion heading towards how its impossible to measure microkelvins with a tape measure
:shrug:
Last edited:
It's not a question of accuracy, more of efficiency.
It's entirely possible with a tape-measure... it's just inefficient. Afterall, what is a thermometer if not a calibrated measure of distance for the expansiong of a certain volume of a certain liquid?
You're still failing to deal with the principles, but rather continue your fellacious argument of triviality.
This is nothing but deflection, LG.
A tape measure is not "completely the wrong tool" at all... it just requires calibration.
If you can not concede that then it is no wonder you continue to use poor analogies that do nothing to help whatever point it is you're trying to make, and then instead backtrack and merely argue trivialities or other logical fallacies.
What an idiotic suggestion.
Of course one can use a tape measure to read temperature by bringing other tools into the discussion - much like one can use a (properly calibrated) lawn mower to do the tax returns of a small business (by organizing an accountant to walk through the door and do it upon hearing one start the lawn mower of course)
Let us know when you are ready to discuss how one can calibrate a tape measure to read microkelvins - bet you can't (unless you bring other tools into the discussion) ... looks like you are trying to over ride the word "exclusive" much like you have tried to over ride the word "accurate"
Last edited:
sure
hence accurate measurement requires more precise tools
I guess it really depends on the context of the person laying the claim about "accuracy" (as opposed to second parties coming in and talking about bodies of water expanding and giving semantic over lays to distort the context) donchathink?
@lightgigantic --
But the expanding liquid thing is how thermometers were designed. Even if it doesn't work in practice for what you want it to, the principle is still valid.
What you, and every single theist ever, have consistently failed to do is show why religion is a better tool for measuring anything. Hell, you lot can't even demonstrate that the principle works, that there's anything to be measured at all.
So quit with the deflection, you're going to derail the thread.
But the expanding liquid thing is how thermometers were designed. Even if it doesn't work in practice for what you want it to, the principle is still valid.
What you, and every single theist ever, have consistently failed to do is show why religion is a better tool for measuring anything. Hell, you lot can't even demonstrate that the principle works, that there's anything to be measured at all.
So quit with the deflection, you're going to derail the thread.
the principle is that you can't measure temperature accurately (to the unit of microkelvins) with the exclusive use of tape measures
why?
Because its the wrong tool for the job.
Do you agree to this or do you insist of redefining the context in order to render a broader scope to the terms "accurate" and "exclusive"?
If you can't concede that a tape measure is the wrong tool for the task mentioned above I'm afraid there's not much scope for discussing further issues abroad with religion.
In fact your attitude of being unable to concede even straight forward logical truths is typical of the tight-nit bias that a particular type of atheist requires in order to maintain their ideology.
:shrug:
@lightgigantic --
A tape measure is a poorly optimized tool to be sure, but under most circumstances it would be adequate for the job.
But by all means, use your obtuse and fallacious analogy as a reason to dismiss further discussion with me. Show your true colors once again.
A tape measure is a poorly optimized tool to be sure, but under most circumstances it would be adequate for the job.
But by all means, use your obtuse and fallacious analogy as a reason to dismiss further discussion with me. Show your true colors once again.
that's what you keep saying but you are yet to provide any clue how to use a tape measure to measure microkelvins (except to dumb down the use of "exclusive" call in other tools to perform the task or dumb down the use of the word "accurate" to remove the task from the problem of measuring microkelvins).
As mentioned before, all you are doing is reinforcing the stereotype of the dogmatic militant atheist (as distinguished from the philosophical variety).
:shrug:
Far from refuting this, you are confirming it ...
I create the notion that temperature cannot be measured accurately. The reason you cannot is because I require the exclusive use of tape measures only.
Attempt to disprove Mr A when he says temperature cannot be measured accurately. The reason atheism has not been disproved lies within.
The problem is everyone has their own idea of what measuring tool they need, and they still get data they think is relevant. That's because of the fundamental religious mistake of always interpreting the data to fit the premise, no matter how absurd the data might be. This undermines any assertion that there is a proper tool and that theists are the only ones who can access it.
why talk of the religious?
Person who advocate life is a materially reducible phenomena are doing the exact same thing ...
:shrug:
Why talk of life? You might as well say that rocks are not materially reducible phenomena.
This seems a universal trait, not one restricted to theists. The way to knowledge is X. Other ways either do not work or achieve less important knowledge. The latter divvying up of knowledge often being the theist view.