The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!
Religion or Atheism Which is better?
in Religion
Debra AI Prediction
Arguments
"a "believe" system by nature isn't empirircally verifiable... that's why it's a belief system. "
Right, which is why you have a belief system. Big bangism and evolution are not empirically verifiable, if they were, then we can call them facts. You know this
"Science isn't "infallible","
yet you consider your belief system fact, because "Science has checks and peer review that do the verification for me" lol! In other words, your belief system that is based purely on pseudoscience is dependable because other pseudoscientist agree.
My belief system has empirically verifiable evidence. I know the earth is flat, because I have verified this myself. Literally anyone can, no opinion needed.
"I have however seen that the earth is round"
Please share this anecdotal evidence. I'll share verifiable evidence against it. So far all I've seen is a few nuh-uhs and but, but muh science book!
"This isn't a debate about the moon, or a flat earth though is it?"
That is the basis of your belief system. If the earth is flat and geocentric, that means someone put it here. Then, your pseudoscientific belief system is disproved. Still waiting. Prove that ball earth.
Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.
Wayne Dyer
  Considerate: 81%  
  Substantial: 69%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.76  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 84%  
  Learn More About Debra
Fact is an interesting term, and although I probably shouldn't open up a semantics debate with you I'm going to do it anyway. The only fact is that I exist, everything else is just higher levels of likelihood. At some point the likelihood of something becomes so high we consider it a fact. The evolution is a fact on that scale, while the big bang isn't. There are a few other plausible theories, as well as "holes" in the big bang theory, but it's the most likely of what we currently know.
Now you are calling science pseudoscience. Let's how how pseudoscience is defined:
Dictionary - any of various methods, theories, or systems, as astrology, psychokinesis, or clairvoyance,considered as having no scientific basis.
Webster - a system of theories, assumptions, and methods erroneously regarded as scientific
Oxford - A collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method.
Free Dictionary - A theory, methodology, or practice that is considered to be without scientific foundation.
So it is logically impossible for science to be pseudoscience, and again you are using words you don't know the meaning of.
This is a debate about if atheism is better than theism, not a debate to convert atheists to theism. You want to create a "The earth is flat" debate and tag me in it I'll dance with ya, but that's not what this debate is about.
  Considerate: 87%  
  Substantial: 78%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.94  
  Sources: 8  
  Relevant (Beta): 34%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 48%  
  Substantial: 96%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 5.84  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 94%  
  Learn More About Debra
Is the definition I look at. But we can disect that even more. Science has swayed from the scientific method, which can be defined as:
a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
That is Natural science, which is the core of science. Something that is scalable, observable, repeatable, falsifiable, practical and demonstrable.
Formal sciences, like string theory, mathematics, logic, big bangism, etc. Are different because they require no empirical data, experimentation, or verification (pseudoscience). The numbers will add up regardless how many false axioms are used. Natural science precedes formal science for obvious reasons.
I have shown, and I'm repeating myself because you keep dodging, with natural science, that the earth is flat. This inheritantly disproves evolution and big bangism, and any atheistic pseudoscience, which depends on heliocentrism, the false, assumed axiom th a props up your whole belief system. This makes us special.
"Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality." Nikola Tesla
Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.
Wayne Dyer
  Considerate: 93%  
  Substantial: 88%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 12.88  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 74%  
  Learn More About Debra
"a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."
Let's see how that lines up:
Dictionary - a method of research in which a problem is identified, relevant data are gathered, a hypothesis is formulated from these data, and the hypothesis is empirically tested
Webster - principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses
Oxford - A method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
Free Dictionary - The principles and empirical processes of discovery and demonstration considered characteristic of or necessary for scientific investigation, generally involving the observation of phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena, experimentation to test the hypothesis, and development of a conclusion that confirms, rejects, or modifies the hypothesis.
Ok so you are going with Oxford's definition, and rather than focusing on how the definition is the same as others, you are focusing on the "natural science" part, and contrasting it to what you are calling "formal science". Let's have a look at nature science then
Dictionary - a science or knowledge of objects or processes observable in nature, as biology or physics, as distinguished from the abstract or theoretical sciences, as mathematics or philosophy.
Webster - any of the sciences (such as physics, chemistry, or biology) that deal with matter, energy, and their interrelations and transformations or with objectively measurable phenomena
Oxford - A branch of science which deals with the physical world, e.g. physics, chemistry, geology, biology.
Free Dictionary - A science, such as biology, chemistry, or physics, that deals with the objects, phenomena, or laws of nature and the physical world.
So "natural science" just means science that deals with the physical world, and "formal sciences" deal with logic, mathematics, statistic. I'm more use to the older terms of hard and soft science, but ok. I'll even give you that natural science is the "core" of science.
So basically you are going back to the axiom that the soft sciences are not "real" science, I haven't had that debate in many years, but yes math is a science. You can observe it, measure it, and experiment with it. Also you can not measure hard sciences without the soft science of math, and computers.
So I guess I'm going to talk about hard science that proves the earth is round.
The physics of time zones and it being daytime and nighttime somewhere in the world all the time.
The physics of coriolis effect is different in the northern and southern hemispheres.
The sun gets lower in the sky as you travel away from the equator
The stars change as you move around the globe, physically that's not how a flat surface works
The horizon covers the bottom of buildings first moving up, indicating the earth is in the way
While I have a lot of respect for Tesla, he wasn't right about everything, and made some wild claims.
  Considerate: 97%  
  Substantial: 86%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 13.4  
  Sources: 10  
  Relevant (Beta): 23%  
  Learn More About Debra
We can prove that the sun is close and small by simply looking up on any cloudy day.
So again, the false premise is " the sun is so far away that it's rays are parallel when they reach the Earth" and this is only possible on a globe earth " If you think those rays are parallel, then you probably failed geometry.
"The physics of coriolis effect is different in the northern and southern hemispheres. "
Please ellaborate, there are different arguments against each example. Either way it's a red herring, this is not measuring the earth.
"The sun gets lower in the sky as you travel away from the equator"
This is the law of perspective. As the tracks appear to converge, the telephone poles get lower too. Also a red herring, this is not measuring the earth.
"The stars change as you move around the globe, physically that's not how a flat surface works"
Same thing, the stars are close. Identical results can be found with my model. Definitely not measuring the earth.
"The horizon covers the bottom of buildings first moving up, indicating the earth is in the way"
Measuring the earth, but nothing specific here, no examples or measurements.
Ok, you at least tried. I'll give you that. Here's a copy paste from my debate.
With the curvature calculator found here:
https://dizzib.github.io/earth/curve-calc/?d0=30&h0=10&unit=imperial
you can see that an observer at 1000 feet looking at an item 163 miles away would find that object 10,631 feet below the horizon. This would place the peak of Canigou well over 1000 feet below the horizon however not only it, but other peaks near it are clearly seen. In the videos below you will see several, sometimes 6 or 7 noticeable and very clear distinct mountain peaks. Even peaks 4000 feet high can be seen and this peak should be over a mile below the horizon.
http://canigou.allauch.free.fr/index.html
Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.
Wayne Dyer
  Considerate: 76%  
  Substantial: 72%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.2  
  Sources: 6  
  Relevant (Beta): 28%  
  Learn More About Debra
Math is a tool. You can't empirically observe it or measure it. You can use it to do these things, but as I explained, if there is empirical evidence against a theory supported entirely by mathematics, or against one of it's core axioms, this makes it a theory based on at least one arguably false assumption. You want to base your belief system on conjecture and assumptions? Sure, it all looks very nice on the drawing board, but how much of it is reality?
Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.
Wayne Dyer
  Considerate: 89%  
  Substantial: 98%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.22  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 80%  
  Substantial: 93%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.58  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 66%  
  Learn More About Debra
1) Time zones. I talk about time zones and you respond with shadows. If there was a “small close sun" then a flat surfaces would not have time zones, and one area wouldn’t be in darkness while another area is in sun. To use your figures 2a has sun at all parts, but 2b does not have sun on the back side.
  Considerate: 80%  
  Substantial: 79%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 4.14  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 74%  
  Learn More About Debra
1. Despite what you think, light does not travel infinitely far. A small close sun lights locally.
At night, the sun is just a few thousand miles away hidden by that much atmosphere .
2. Coriolis effect. I know what it is, please give a practical example. There are different explanations for each. For example the drain example is false altogether.
3.Sun’s height
Yes, the law of perspective causes the sun to appear lower in the sky. Atmospheric refraction causes sunsets. The sun is magnified and lowered. Talk about intelligent design.
4. Stars are not trillions of miles away. They along with everything else in the world follows the law of perspective. They just go far enough away that they disappear. The laws of perspective are commonly known aspect of human perception. As far as stars "flipping", please elaborate on that. Are you claiming that north and south change positions? Or that, because the south faces north to see a constellation that a northerner would face south to see, that instead of those observers obviously facing each other on a flat plane, seeing a constellation between them from opposite angles, that this positively implies that one or the other is hanging from his toes? Come now. Maybe you do have an ape-brain ancestor or two.
5. Horizon covers bottom first.
Again, you give no examples. You do realize that I'm in no way claiming that the Earth is perfectly mathematically flat right? I do believe in hills and trees. There is also a thing called refraction.
"Your link is dead" it's fixed now. It is an automatic calculator that tells you how much curvature there should be over a given distance from any given altitude. I did not make a rule disallowing math. I spoke against math as a science.
http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/mathematics
You're making up an excuse so that can dismiss my evidence. There it stands, undisputed, empirical evidence that water is flat, as common sense tells us all, over 150 miles, while you point at the sky.
Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.
Wayne Dyer
  Considerate: 84%  
  Substantial: 79%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.28  
  Sources: 4  
  Relevant (Beta): 54%  
  Learn More About Debra
You can't dictate and predict every atheist's belief system.
atheism is a religion debate reference
You can't just place Darwin as the god of atheism for evolution and all.
Somewhere yes an atheist has a belief system that he may not even be aware of! But with religion they have a highly recognised belief system they commit to and devote to. Atheism is a wild ride for some people. They just realise one thing and they're atheist not giving it further thought unless someone challenges them they begin to come back to religion again. I mean given enough logic math is a religion.
  Considerate: 70%  
  Substantial: 75%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.5  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 91%  
  Learn More About Debra
Im generalizing atheists based on majority consensus.
atheism is a religion debate reference
?
"You can't just place Darwin as the god of atheism for evolution and all."
Im not, the atheist's God is gravity. It created us all, in the magical creating explosion, again, I'm generalizing the atheist's belief system.
" somewhere yes an atheist has a belief system that he may not even be aware of! "
But with religion they have a highly recognised belief system they commit to and devote to.
I agree totally. Gravity is a lie, how do you feel about that? I'm not religious, I don't feel that theism=religion. I know the earth is flat and based on that information, coupled with the overwhelming amount of empirical evidence that supports the firmament, I can assume, at the very least, the creation story, over theoretical physicists, a joke to the scientific method.
" Atheism is a wild ride for some people. They just realise one thing and they're atheist not giving it further thought unless someone challenges them they begin to come back to religion again."
I don't even read the Bible. Even if it contains the more credible origin story, it is still a book. It being such a widely pushed book, another sign of indoctrination, I can't fully accept it as infallible. @evidence has an interesting thought process that I'm still taking in. Either way, I know we are special.
" I mean given enough logic math is a religion. "
Or a belief system created from mathematics.
Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.
Wayne Dyer
  Considerate: 82%  
  Substantial: 75%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.72  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 50%  
  Learn More About Debra
I seem interested with evidence's new found thoughts.
Anyway major emphasis on the atheism is a wild ride for some, I'm simply pointing out some people become atheists because they realize or read one thing and when they are seemingly pulverised by just that one thing that triggers them to be atheist they revert. I mean I don't blame they if they take the first step but maybe take more steps. Upon taking up atheism it is highly suggested to look over the many topics...
though I as an atheist find nothing interesting yet with Charles Darwin having not finished yet my formal education.
  Considerate: 88%  
  Substantial: 87%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.66  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
atheist: "a person who believes there is no God."
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist
Variable definitions exist because people understand that you cannot paint everyone with the same brush. You will note that it was not necessary for me to employ the use of adjectives. We could. We could say, employing the valid definition that I have given, that such an atheist is a strong atheist. We could say that atheists who identify themselves as you have identified atheism are weak atheists, and I would agree...very weak atheists indeed. But it is disingenuous to suggest that atheism does not include individuals that believe strongly that no god exists.
  Considerate: 63%  
  Substantial: 97%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.26  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
The great deception.
Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.
Wayne Dyer
  Considerate: 54%  
  Substantial: 57%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.88  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 59%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 54%  
  Substantial: 89%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.02  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 73%  
  Learn More About Debra
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist
Perhaps you are being disingenuous. The definition is there for you to see. I didn't create anything. The problem is you left the page after you saw the first definition, without doing any further searching...scroll down and you will see the definition I provided, a perfectly legitimate definition for atheism.
Here is an excerpt:
ATHEIST Defined for English Language Learners
atheist
playDefinition of atheist for English Language Learners
: a person who believes that God does not exist <------------------------------------------------------------------------
ATHEIST Defined for Kids
atheist
playDefinition of atheist for Students
: a person who believes there is no God <---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Considerate: 60%  
  Substantial: 82%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.04  
  Sources: 5  
  Relevant (Beta): 17%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 87%  
  Substantial: 97%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.82  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 81%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 82%  
  Substantial: 81%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 4.72  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 15%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 86%  
  Substantial: 71%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.58  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 81%  
  Learn More About Debra
https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-98a62661b40389de41d38fa569335066
  Considerate: 76%  
  Substantial: 98%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.48  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 93%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 86%  
  Substantial: 39%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.9  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 52%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 80%  
  Substantial: 97%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.12  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 90%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 76%  
  Substantial: 92%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.18  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
Consider the word gnosticism as defined by Wikipedia:
Gnosticism: (from Ancient Greek: γνωστικός gnostikos, "having knowledge".
Consider the definition of knowledge as defined by Merriam-Webster online dictionary:
Knowledge: the sum of what is known : the body of truth, information, and principles acquired by humankind.
Obviously, from this definition we can see that knowledge is made up of either three components (i.e. truth, information, and principles), or quite possibly one component represented by three different words, (truth, information and principles)
I will contend that the three are one. Information must also be truth for it to be considered "true" information. If it is not true information, it is disinformation, and disinformation is not information, but rather false information, which in all honestly cannot, by any reasonable account, be considered actual information.
For information to be considered anything resembling knowledge, it must be true information. And information is defined as "facts provided or learned about something or someone."
https://www.google.com/webhp?tab=lw&ei=DjlfWJsLyOuYAcKToKgP&ved=0EKkuCAUoAQ#q=information+def
Principles are defined as "a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behavior or for a chain of reasoning."
https://www.google.com/webhp?tab=lw&ei=DjlfWJsLyOuYAcKToKgP&ved=0EKkuCAUoAQ#q=principles+def
We can't get around the fact that knowledge must be true in order for it to be considered knowledge...on to my example.
Expressions of knowledge
I say, "I know that 2+2=4"
John Doe responds, "yes, you're right, and I agree"
Here we have an example of two people who know that 2+2=4. This information is knowledge because it is true.
Expression lacking knowledge
I say, "I know that 2+2=5"
John Doe responds, "no sonofason, you cannot "know" that 2+2=5 because 2+2 is not=5, because 2+2=4.
Here I am displaying a lack of knowledge, which cannot be considered knowledge because knowledge must be true.
John Doe is displaying knowledge because his response is entirely true.
  Considerate: 87%  
  Substantial: 87%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.08  
  Sources: 3  
  Relevant (Beta): 17%  
  Learn More About Debra
If you think you know something is true, but what you "think" is not true, you cannot know that it is true. You can only think you know, and that is not knowledge and therefore not gnostic.
  Considerate: 86%  
  Substantial: 64%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 5.44  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 95%  
  Learn More About Debra
You can think a false to be true, and be gnostic about it. It has nothing to do with the absolute truth of the situation or even the mostly likely truth based on measurable, objective, peer reviewed research on the topic. Gnostic and agnostic are concepts at the end of the christianity spectrum that few ever reach. Most people aren't completely uncertain or completely certain about anything. That's why it's a scale.
  Considerate: 85%  
  Substantial: 98%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.3  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 87%  
  Substantial: 60%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.98  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 91%  
  Learn More About Debra
@Coveny
"Time Zones – We’ve all seen lights fade away because the light source is too far away. I’ve never seen the sun “fade”, or look like a pin prick in the distance of darkness."
You should probably get out more. Get above the hills and trees too. Again you're still ignoring atmospheric refraction.
You don't comprehend the words practical examples? How does just typing the word coriolis prove your position? I've given the most practical example (drains) for you, and debunked it. Ball's still in your court. Also, I've never implied the earth is a disk. It may be an infinite plane.
You don't even know your own model.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analemma
Let alone enough about mine to effectively argue against it. The sun analemma proves conclusively that the sun makes a larger circuit in the south. If the earth were a ball, the sun analemma would be symmetrical.
"Law of perspective doesn’t work. Planes fades away at around 8 miles when it’s above us, we see none of the stuff you are indicating with them.
You mean you've never heard a plane, seen it directly overhead and watched it go away from you? It appears to be losing altitude, but we know full well they fly level.
"Also even if everything you say is correct how is that “intelligent design”? It’s sounds like HORRIBLE design."
Your opinion of a model you obviously don't understand is completely irrelevant.
Should i copy and paste the last rebuttal? Maybe a mental visual would help. Imagine you and a friend are on opposite sides of a room with an arrow facing your friend on the ceiling. Call your wall the north and his the south. You will see the arrow upside down, pointing at him, while he sees it right side up. This does not imply that the room is a sphere. It's simple optics.
"Also if they stars are closer and smaller then they would fade if they moved away per the law of perspective. Stars don’t fade away. You make no sense."
As i said, you're ignoring refraction. Water in the air causes objects to be magnified and lowered. A simple experiment confirms this. Fill a clear glass with water and place it at the eye's level. Place an object partially behind it, so that you can see both the actual position and size as well as it's apparent position and size. I know how much pseudoscientists detest actual scientific experiments, so I've conducted it myself three different ways. Here are the results of one.
As you can see, the refracted position and size have changed to match what you've explained. If the object being refracted is close to the horizon, the lower portions will be intercepted by the ground plane. This explains most of your misunderstandings, including your next point.
As far as math being a science your article doesn’t disprove this to be true, it state’s “the answer depends on one’s philosophical views on the nature of mathematics”. I found an interesting article on the topic.
Thanks for not reading either article and reinforcing my position. Quote from your source:
"After much thought, I no longer think math is a science. Science must be empirical, meaning it must be based on observations of nature, and it must be potentially falsifiable by new observations of nature. This article makes some valid points but doesn't adequately emphasize science's empirical requirement. I'm leaving this article on my website as a historical artifact, not as a reflection of my current views."
And you still ignore my evidence.
Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.
Wayne Dyer
  Considerate: 76%  
  Substantial: 82%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.52  
  Sources: 12  
  Relevant (Beta): 49%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 70%  
  Substantial: 38%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 13.22  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 83%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 93%  
  Substantial: 97%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.96  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 90%  
  Substantial: 83%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.06  
  Sources: 3  
  Relevant (Beta): 89%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 98%  
  Substantial: 10%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 11.42  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
Ya, it looks like a stalemate from ignorance anyway. How anyone can not understand how two people facing each other will see an object between them from two different angles is mindblowing. @Coveny whenever you get ready.
http://dev1.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/4229#Comment_4229
Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.
Wayne Dyer
  Considerate: 66%  
  Substantial: 47%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.92  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 42%  
  Learn More About Debra
Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.
Wayne Dyer
  Considerate: 42%  
  Substantial: 40%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 3  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 92%  
  Learn More About Debra
wrong post, can't delete, please ignore.
  Considerate: 54%  
  Substantial: 86%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 89%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.28  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 39%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 70%  
  Substantial: 41%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 91%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 2.76  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
@Coveny said: I don’t have a god, so I can’t tell you how my god is different from other gods. I’m not playing word games, or speaking around anything, you are confusing me… with yourself.
You don't have a what/who? A god, what's that?
You see, if I was serious about my above statement, that's how an atheist who doesn't believe that a god exists would respond with..
Can you, or ANYONE tell me something that doesn't exist?
Impossible, because it doesn't exist.
The Higgs boson didn't exist until Mr. Higgs invented it.
The imaginary Big-Banged universe didn't exist until the Catholic Jesuit Priest Georges Lemaitre invented it.
Humans used to be human, until some grave robbing, skull&bones worshipping atheists said we are animals.
Coveny said: My meaning of theism and atheism have them as opposites one believes in god one does not. There is no contradiction in my definitions. Again you are confusing me – with yourself.
Yes, the theists believe in gods that everyone must accept on blind faith, of which not one is our Creator God, (again, and again as you keep avoiding my comments just as @Erfisflat said) because our Creator can be evidenced by science, while the theistic/atheistic gods must be accepted on blind faith.
Coveny: More mystic crap I’m going to ignore.
Because your religion commands you to ignore evidence of both Creator of the Earth and everything in it, and His creation. The only thing you are allowed to accept is what they tell you, and that on blind faith. And you must mock any evidence against your belief system. typical of all religions, theist or atheist.
Coveny: I have stated my side, you have done nothing to prove me wrong. You talk in circle about gods who aren’t gods. How everything was created, but not everything was created. And many other logical impossibilities. You have repeatedly used words wrong.
This is a debating sight, and you keep making general fallacious statements about the evidences I present. As for your "Angels don't have free will", that's the gods/deities you claim you don't believe in talking, and I'm not an exorcist, so I cannot help you there.
You can pray can't you? Just not to any of the deities that you don't believe in, OK?
  Considerate: 65%  
  Substantial: 94%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 90%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.06  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 82%  
  Learn More About Debra
Theists believe in gods. period. end sentence. Just as you believe in your creator god on blind faith, and science does NOT support you. Speaking of fallacies you are committing one. It's called shifting the burden of proof. You say your god exists, then they burden of proof is on YOU. YOU must prove your god exists, I don't have prove it doesn't exist.
or here - https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof
What fallacy have I made? Name the fallacy, and point to where I did it. Otherwise don't make vague baseless accusations.
No I can't pray... I'm an atheist.
  Considerate: 70%  
  Substantial: 77%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 7.86  
  Sources: 3  
  Relevant (Beta): 91%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 62%  
  Substantial: 86%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 88%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 9.28  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 96%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 89%  
  Substantial: 54%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 82%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 4.12  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 89%  
  Substantial: 22%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 70%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 2.24  
  Sources: 1  
  Relevant (Beta): 6%  
  Learn More About Debra
Scientific method: noun; a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about.
Wayne Dyer
  Considerate: 95%  
  Substantial: 11%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 100%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 2.72  
  Sources: 2  
  Relevant (Beta): 67%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 94%  
  Substantial: 94%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 96%  
  Sentiment: Positive  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.88  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 97%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 85%  
  Substantial: 88%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 99%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.82  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 99%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 79%  
  Substantial: 92%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 98%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 8.42  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 93%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 96%  
  Substantial: 98%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 97%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 10.82  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 98%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 74%  
  Substantial: 86%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 93%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level: 6.88  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 90%  
  Learn More About Debra
At a level of abstraction yes an apple is a apple, that's the issue.
A dog is the high level, a poodle is a lower level, your dog spot is even lower. At a high level they are all equal, but a husky isn't equal to a poodle now is it? And you sure wouldn't be willing to trade the family pet for another dog because a dog is a dog.
  Considerate: 78%  
  Substantial: 71%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 94%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 4.48  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 94%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 50%  
  Substantial: 63%  
  Spelling & Grammar: 95%  
  Sentiment: Neutral  
  Avg. Grade Level: 5.8  
  Sources: 0  
  Relevant (Beta): 94%  
  Learn More About Debra