It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussion (archive)A Message to Atheists and Agnostics - I get you(2370 posts)(2370 posts)
(2370 posts)
Pages:
1
25
50
75
84
85
86
87
88
125
150
158
This is my favourite topic
Posted February 02, 2014
avatar
jamotide: You don't have to "trust" any scientist, you can verify what they say, and if that is not possible nobody will believe them. That is the whole point of science.
[/quote_1167]
Unless you've personally verified every single experiment, you're trusting what the scientists say who did those experiments. If other scientists verify the first scientist's experiment, then that means that you're trusting a larger group of scientists. The fact remains that you have knowledge that is based entirely on what others have told you is true.

Scientists could be lying too because hoaxes do appear from time to time. People still widely believe the lie that they only use 10% of their brain. If he is lying and you choose to cross, that just means that your faith was misplaced and that you had knowledge was incorrect.

The first example you gave wasn't actually a case of circular reasoning. The second example would have been circular, but it wasn't actually something I said, and it was in fact something I disagreed with.

I did willfully refuse to explain in that response, but you are still willfully ignorant because I have already explain in this thread, and it is something you could easily look up. It starts with the mountain if historical evidence.

So people think that is stronger evidence that their interpretation of Genesis is true than there is for evolution. For instance, some people take rings in ice cores to be an indication of how many years have passed, like tree rings. However, those rings can actually form much faster than yearly cycles. So they are not against science, but they think that scientific evidence has been misinterpreted by scientists to indicate that the Earth is much older than it actually is.
avatar
Soyeong:

What is there to understand? Gods laws and punishments are made pretty clear.
avatar
Soyeong: God is sovereign, so He has the right to take and give life as He sees fit. If someone in a country commits a capital crime and receives a capital punishment, that does not mean the government is a murderous 1984 dictatorship.

What was that about circular reasoning again?
avatar
Soyeong: You don't seem to be fully aware of what circular reasoning is, so I'm not sure what you're getting at.
avatar
monkeydelarge: What other evidence do you have other than the "evidence" in the bible? How come, Jesus didn't write anything in the bible, himself? How come, the Roman writers of that time, didn't write about Jesus but wrote about everything else?
avatar
Soyeong: Here is some evidence for Jesus from non-Christian sources.

http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.4223639/k.567/Ancient_Evidence_for_Jesus_from_NonChristian_Sources.htm
The page shows examples of words mentioning Christians, Christus and Christian beliefs but I doubt these sources are reliable. The words of Tacitus can easily be faked and the words of other writers of that time can easily be faked. During the middle ages, when Christians had a lot of power, they could of found the real writings of Tacitus and had monks edit them to aid in the spread of Christianity. And even if the examples on the page truly came from those writers, all that proves is there was a man named Jesus who Christians worshiped. A man who was crucified for pissing people off. So your evidence if reliable, doesn't prove he is a son of god who can do miracles. And other than some words about Christians, Christus and Christian beliefs, there is no evidence whatsoever proving that Jesus did exist.
Post edited February 02, 2014 by monkeydelarge
Posted February 02, 2014
avatar
jamotide: Snip...
Oh, we are the sarcasm stage of the discussion! My my, you are a naughty atheist!

The funny thing is even the way you word your phrases makes you sound like a religious fanatic. "And that's where you are wrong!" "We don't need to believe in X or Y we have Science do to that for us!" "I'm 100% sure that X Y does not exist!"

Admit it: Science is your god and religion and the scientists are your priest. You are in denial.

And you still don't have a clue of what I was implying with that "Xenu (or Zeus or whatever) could exist" comment. You, like every fanatic narrow minded atheist, is thinking of a magical being perhaps, which, by the way, amuses me. Keep it up, man. This is getting funny.
Post edited February 02, 2014 by FAButzke
Posted February 02, 2014
avatar
FAButzke: Oh, we are the sarcasm stage of the discussion! My my, you are a naughty atheist!
I had hoped we entered that when you said there is a chance Xenu might exist.

avatar
FAButzke: The funny thing is even the way you word your phrases makes you sound like a religious fanatic. "And that's where you are wrong!" "We don't need to believe in X or Y we have Science do to that for us!" "I'm 100% sure that X Y does not exist!"
I don't know why you insist that belief in something is the same as not believing in something.

avatar
FAButzke: Admit it: Science is your god and religion and the scientists are your priest. You are in denial.
Denial of what, Xenu? How about responding to the points I made for a change.

avatar
FAButzke: And you still don't have a clue of what I was implying with that "Xenu (or Zeus or whatever) could exist" comment.
You say that because you think that if something cannot be disproved, it might exist. But in the real world that is not how it works. In the real world if someone makes up some impossible BS, you don't say "yes hmm I don't think you are the Easter Bunny, but I can't really be sure so I won;t deny it", you laugh in their face.

avatar
FAButzke: You, like every fanatic narrow minded atheist...
Did an atheist touch you in a funny place? Your hatred reminds me of some holy war.
Post edited February 02, 2014 by jamotide
Posted February 02, 2014
All of a sudden I'm not a big Thundercats fan. :P
Posted February 02, 2014
avatar
s23021536: (JUMPS UP AND DOWN) Oi I have a question:

It seems to me that there are a fair number of atheists, or at least irreligious, people on the forum. Now, of course it depends on where you are in the world, but I think it is perhaps rather likely (or not very unlikely) that you might form part of a minority in your extended circle of friends and family. So my question is this: How do you your religious family members and friends feel about your absence of faith and having you around? Do they know? Are you a closeted atheist as it were? I wouldn't blame anyone if they were. I once read a study (forgot the name: something along the line of "Do you trust in atheists?") in which the study presented evidence towards the statement that atheists are the least trusted group in America, and I don't think it is restricted to America. Its not an absolutely damning study though : the sample sizes were quite small - most studies were with groups of 150ish people.
They think I am an asshole.
Posted February 02, 2014
avatar
Rohan15: They think I am an asshole.
Bwahaha. That's a people thing, not a theism/atheism/agnosticism one. :P
Posted February 02, 2014
avatar
FAButzke: Admit it: Science is your god and religion and the scientists are your priest. You are in denial.
So you, as a religious person, dont believe in science? If you do, please restrain from making such statements, as it is absurd, doesnt make any sense, and is contradictory.
Unless you really do not believe in science, you're a hypocrite. No offense.

And if you do not believe in it, I presume you dont use any medicine, any medical care etc? I mean, scientists and their findings obviously dont mean sht, do they?
So if you use medical care, that makes you a hypocrite, because I get the following vibe from your posts "Fuck science, God for the win".

You call a person narrow minded, yet you discard science. Man, there is a huge difference between science and religion. Religious beliefs: IMPOSSIBLE to prove. I mean, how the hell could you prove that some myth book is true (Bible), or that some prophets who had some miraculous visions were telling the truth?

Do you know how science works? Do you know how stuff gets approved? Basicly for a statement to be deemed as scientific, it must be possible to be proved (thats why a lot of the stuff that Freud said cant be deemed as science), and it stands true as long as someone doesnt find evidence that its not correct.

So yeah, their findings are correct until someone proves them wrong. Everybody is welcome to either abolish them, or confirm their statements through their own research.
Post edited February 02, 2014 by DrYaboll
Posted February 02, 2014
avatar
jamotide: The point is that you CAN do those experiments, you can verify them. For some of them its hard, for some of them it is extremely easy. Go to youtube, there are videos that show you how you can find out that the earth is not flat, just like Aristoteles back then. No need for blind faith, no need to reserve the possibility of a flat earth like a good agnostic anymore. You can verify all the evidence by yourself. And by evidence I mean evidence, not something that somebody maybe have said at some point. You don't need to believe anything, find it out for yourself. That is what science is about.
Verification is not a perfect process because it never removes the possibility of being wrong; it only reduces the probability of that. As such, all we're doing by verification is increasing the probability or our confidence that it is true. If we can't have knowledge of things that are probably true, then you're throwing out huge chunks of scientific knowledge. We can have a very high degree of confidence that the bridge will be safe, but we can't ever know that with 100% certainty, so when we choose to cross the bridge, we are trusting or having faith that it is safe.
See this is the religious peoples problem, scientists getting something wrong, does not mean some baseless assumption is automatically more likely.
See this is the non-religious people's problem, incorrectly assuming that we think scientists getting something wrong means that that anything else is true.
Right, you can't vote another god, if your god exists, so it is a dictator. It murders people on a daily basis. There is lots of murder commanded by it in the bible, so where do you get this not murderous from?
I'm not sure why you're still confusing lawful capital punishment for someone's actions with murder. A dictatorship is an absolute overbearing power where the people have no freedom. You've been given freedom to accept or reject God and heaven and hell are essentially God giving you want you asked for. If God were a dictator, then he would force people to believe what He wanted them to believe.
Then please explain it to me. Don't just throw it out there. The bridge example is very clearly circular, it is not hard to understand. I never said you wrote the second example, that was simply for your benefit to see how religious circular reasoning usually goes, glad you agree, though.
I've already explain to you that a scientist doing experiments and then you trusting what they say to be factual is not in any way circular reasoning. It's part of the normal process of learning. Your second example is little more than your fanciful imagination of how religious people think. It's so easy to poke holes in straw man arguments, isn't it?
Posted February 02, 2014
avatar
DrYaboll: for a statement to be deemed as scientific, it must be possible to be proved
And more importantly disproved. Falsifiability is what sets science apart from mysticism and religion (science is accountable to scrutiny), and what makes religious beliefs non-provable and non-disprovable (circularity through formal-logic-cancelling "magic" wildcard).

And what makes this whole discussion bullshit.
Posted February 02, 2014
Clearly God hates Denver.
Posted February 02, 2014
avatar
Rohan15: They think I am an asshole.
avatar
MaximumBunny: Bwahaha. That's a people thing, not a theism/atheism/agnosticism one. :P
It is when you refuse to pray when you are in a household filled with Tea Party Christians.
Posted February 02, 2014
avatar
Soyeong: snip... What is it the real metaphysical dilemma that you think is being hidden?
avatar
Brasas: The dilemma is whether existence is accidental or intended.
I assume you believe the universe is not eternal. If so, do you consider its origin to have been accidental or intended?
If you're given an infinite past, then it makes no sense to say that something is possible, but that it wouldn't happen. The heat death of the universe is possible, therefore it happened sometime in the infinite past. So either the universe has a finite past, or something caused the present state of the universe to be something other than heat death. If the universe has a finite past, then it had a beginning, and something caused it. Either way, there is something that is responsible for causing the present state of the universe. I do not see how this could be an accidental cause.
Posted February 02, 2014
avatar
hedwards: Clearly God hates Denver.
Either that, or they had money on Seattle. :P
Posted February 02, 2014
Is the thread going in its quantum physics phase with the rupture of symetry ?
Post edited February 02, 2014 by Potzato
Posted February 02, 2014
avatar
hedwards: Clearly God hates Denver.
He used to hurl meteors at him.
Pages:
1
25
50
75
84
85
86
87
88
125
150
158
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussion (archive)A Message to Atheists and Agnostics - I get you(2370 posts)(2370 posts)
(2370 posts)