Athiests Say They Require Proof...

[ParaTed2k]

Can anyone prove to me that roentgenium (111) exists?

Just wondering. ;~D

[Magnus]

Quote by: ParaTed2k Can anyone prove to me that roentgenium (111) exists? Just wondering. ;~D

Element 111 was officially discovered by Peter Armbruster, Gottfried Münzenber, and their team working at the Gesellschaft für Schwerionenforschung (GSI) in Darmstadt, Germany on December 8, 1994.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roentgenium

That was easy, lawl.

[ParaTed2k]

Quote by: Magnus Element 111 was officially discovered by Peter Armbruster, Gottfried Münzenber, and their team working at the Gesellschaft für Schwerionenforschung (GSI) in Darmstadt, Germany on December 8, 1994. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roentgenium That was easy, lawl.

Very good explanation of who discovered it.. but how was that "proof"?

[Magnus]

Quote by: ParaTed2k Very good explanation of who discovered it.. but how was that "proof"?

Same way discovering North America is proof that it exists.
Your argument has been defeated in what I see as record time (1 post).
Kindly let the embarrasment end now and find another way to try to prove god, k thx bi bi now

[Morality Games]

Quote by: ParaTed2k Can anyone prove to me that roentgenium (111) exists? Just wondering. ;~D

He provided a proof with his data. Since there are highly detailed records from not so long ago by authentic agencies of science, this data should be sufficient enough to convince you -- but if you are still skeptical, you will have to find a scientist to show you the element. If you are skeptical even then, you will have to ask that scientist to explain why this element 'exists' in-itself -- and he will explain how the physical features which characterize existence unfold in this particular element, differentiating it from others (giving it its own existence). If you ask him to prove physical substance exists, he will send you to a philosopher, who would tell you the term 'existence' was coined to refer to the world around us, and that while the definite ontological status of this world is uncertain, we know it is real enough to live in and physical enough to be called physical.

That's about as far as atheists go, and we are pretty content with that explanation.

[ParaTed2k]

Quote by: Magnus Same way discovering North America is proof that it exists. Your argument has been defeated in what I see as record time (1 post). Kindly let the embarrasment end now and find another way to try to prove god, k thx bi bi now

Just because you name some people who claim to have discovered it? That is "proof" in your mind?

Ok, so the Book of Mormon must be true, simply because Joseph Smith discovered it?

Keep patting yourself on the back for doing nothing. It suits you.

[ParaTed2k]

Quote by: Morality Games He provided a proof with his data. Since there are highly detailed records from not so long ago by authentic agencies of science, this data should be sufficient enough to convince you -- but if you are still skeptical, you will have to find a scientist to show you the element. If you are skeptical even then, you will have to ask that scientist to explain why this element 'exists' in-itself -- and he will explain how the physical features which characterize existence unfold in this particular element, differentiating it from others (giving it its own existence). If you ask him to prove physical substance exists, he will send you to a philosopher, who would tell you the term 'existence' was coined to refer to the world around us, and that while the definite ontological status of this world is uncertain, we know it is real enough to live in and physical enough to be called physical. That's about as far as atheists go, and we are pretty content with that explanation.

Have you seen the data? Have you tested it? Or are you merely taking the word of people who have? Have you ever met, or talked to any of the 50 or so people who have ever witnessed element 111?

[rez]

Quote by: ParaTed2k Can anyone prove to me that roentgenium (111) exists? Just wondering. ;~D

Go into the explaining reality thread and stop wasting space. I can't debate you, if you don't know specific definitions to words that are relevant to the discussion.

[Magnus]

Quote by: ParaTed2k Ok, so the Book of Mormon must be true, simply because Joseph Smith discovered it?

He didnt discover it, he wrote it. Theres like a difference.

Also this "method" is intellectual dishonesty has been tried here before, its similar to asking people to "prove" antartica exists, then asking

"so you believe the maps, the pictures, the eye witness accounts, and your recent trip to antartica? ROFLL AHAHA"

Please end this now, we have serious things to debate, you lost, get over it

[ParaTed2k]

Quote by: rez Go into the explaining reality thread and stop wasting space. I can't debate you, if you don't know specific definitions to words that are relevant to the discussion.

Ah, so you can't prove it?

[ParaTed2k]

Quote by: Magnus He didnt discover it, he wrote it. Theres like a difference. Also this "method" is intellectual dishonesty has been tried here before, its similar to asking people to "prove" antartica exists, then asking "so you believe the maps, the pictures, the eye witness accounts, and your recent trip to antartica? ROFLL AHAHA" Please end this now, we have serious things to debate, you lost, get over it

Actually, he didn't write it. His claim is that he was shown where to find the gold plates from which God helped him translate it. Which is why it works as a parallel.

Joseph Smith claiming to have discovered gold plates doesn't prove the Book of Mormon any more than naming the discoverers of element 111 prove it exists...

[Magnus]

Quote by: ParaTed2k Joseph Smith claiming to have discovered gold plates doesn't prove the Book of Mormon any more than naming the discoverers of element 111 prove it exists...

We can detect the element, so show me the gold plates, and you will win this debate.

= )

Do you like how I got you to fall into the trap? too bad, so sad = )

[ParaTed2k]

Quote by: Magnus We can detect the element, so show me the gold plates, and you will win this debate. = ) Do you like how I got you to fall into the trap? too bad, so sad = )

Have you witnessed Rg? Or are you merely believing someone who has?


The gold plates are only an example, they aren't the point.

[Magnus]

Quote by: ParaTed2k Have you witnessed Rg? Or are you merely believing someone who has?

Yes, parakeet, im a member of The vast Roentgenium religious conspiracy of the 111's.

We made up this element from within the scientific community to help theists like you show atheists like me how science is just as mythical as religion and science lies and cannot be relied upon to prove anything.

The gold plates are only an example, they aren't the point.

You brought them up, they were your point and example, and you failed, we cant detect or see the gold plates, but we can with Roentgenium. So we see that your argument has been destroyed.

[ParaTed2k]

Quote by: Magnus Yes, parakeet, im a member of The vast Roentgenium religious conspiracy of the 111's. We made up this element from within the scientific community to help theists like you show atheists like me how science is just as mythical as religion and science lies and cannot be relied upon to prove anything. You brought them up, they were your point and example, and you failed, we cant detect or see the gold plates, but we can with Roentgenium. So we see that your argument has been destroyed.

The fact is, atheists often demand proof from the religious that you don't even expect from science. If anyone wonders why, you act like simply treating us with disdain makes your point. All it ends up doing is preventing any real discussion... which is what science is supposed to encourage.

Thanks for your participation though. Even with the condescending attitude, it's still interesting to hear what you have to say.

[Magnus]

Quote by: ParaTed2k The fact is, atheists often demand proof from the religious that you don't even expect from science.

Do you know what a scientists past time is? Its PROVING that something their co-workers discovered or asserted is FALSE.
They love to do it, in fact, while they love to pick apart anything another scientist says or claims, it is part of the scientific method.
EVERY hypothesis is dismanteled, taken apart, disected, examined, questioned and reviewed. They look for every possible little thing that the scientist making the claim may have missed, even down to the 100th digit. That is what they do.
And if you really wanted, you yourself can examine anything science claims, go to a museum, planetarium, whatever, and theyll explain it to you in laymans terms, or actually show you.

Religion on the other hand? You cant even begin.

Thanks for your participation though. Even with the condescending attitude, it's still interesting to hear what you have to say.

You said we cant detect element 111, i showed you we can, then you gave the golden plates as an example and i asked you to show them to me. It was your own example that ended your argument. Its really quite simple. Its just that I had run into this type of "argument" from theists before, and was able to see through it and preempt you

[ParaTed2k]

Quote by: Magnus Do you know what a scientists past time is? Its PROVING that something their co-workers discovered or asserted is FALSE. They love to do it, in fact, while they love to pick apart anything another scientist says or claims, it is part of the scientific method. EVERY hypothesis is dismanteled, taken apart, disected, examined, questioned and reviewed. They look for every possible little thing that the scientist making the claim may have missed, even down to the 100th digit. That is what they do. Religion on the other hand? You cant even begin. You said we cant detect element 111, i showed you we can, then you gave the golden plates as an example and i asked you to show them to me. It was your own example that ended your argument. Its really quite simple.

Then tell me about the time you dismanteled, took apart, disected, examined, questioned and reviewed element 111.

I never said "we" can't detect it, I said that not everyone who accepts that it exists has witnessed it. We take someone else's word for it without dismantling, taking apart, disecting, examining, questioning or reviewing.

As far as the example goes. You and I can't witness Rg anymore than we can witness the gold plates. We can read about both though.

~~~~

Just a side question... have you ever discussed a topic without treating the other party as if he was beneath you? Just curious.

[Morality Games]

Have you seen the data? Have you tested it? Or are you merely taking the word of people who have? Have you ever met, or talked to any of the 50 or so people who have ever witnessed element 111?

No, but I can determine from the situation surrounding the element that it probably exists; a large part of it has to do with credibility. Like I mentioned in my last post, agencies of science who have gathered and preserved useful information analyzed the element and insist that it exists. Also, new elements are discovered / created from time to time and are used in machines and medicines instrumental to humans, so why should I doubt it in this instance? It is the same type of agencies that discovered that element which insist this information is authentic. I have no reason to doubt them.

Different story with religion. There is plenty of reason to doubt there.

[Magnus]

Quote by: ParaTed2k Then tell me about the time you dismanteled, took apart, disected, examined, questioned and reviewed element 111.

Not that specific element, but others, anyone with a college education has. Maybe you should try it?

I never said "we" can't detect it, I said that not everyone who accepts that it exists has witnessed it. We take someone else's word for it without dismantling, taking apart, disecting, examining, questioning or reviewing.

As morality games says
agencies of science who have gathered and preserved useful information analyzed the element and insist that it exists. Also, new elements are discovered / created from time to time and are used in machines and medicines instrumental to humans, so why should I doubt it in this instance?

Just a side question... have you ever discussed a topic without treating the other party as if he was beneath you? Just curious

Absolutely, when we discuss things as educated adults.
Being asked to prove an element that was made in a lab is quite annoying, why not ask to prove carbon? Well becuase that would be too easy when i blow into your face.

[Jack]

We need to keep this debate above the level of schoolyard taunts. Please re-read the rules if in doubt. Personal insults are not allowed and unnecessary. Keep the debate civil. Debate the topic, don't make comments about the other members.

DO NOT RESPOND IN THIS THREAD TO THE PRECEDING MESSAGE. Please contact a member of the staff privately if you have any questions.