Well, we like to go all out.
·Theme
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Atheism or agnosticism?
Atheism or agnosticism?Follow
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
DSD wrote:
Ailitardif wrote:
DSD wrote:
I'm going to an End of the World party on the 20th. I cant wait to see the back pedaling on the 22 though.
To be fair, the billboards just say May 21....no year. Pretty easy backpedaling on that one.
Not true. And for the hell of it I looked up the URL blasted on her car:
http://www.wecanknow.com/
Yeah, that guy lives out here. It's not the first time he's predicted The End, either. Of course, the first time around he hedged his bets, as is sensible when pulling "facts" out of one's hiney.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
kiworrior wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
LeWoVoc wrote:
Science does not prove or attempt to prove anything. It attempts to limit the chance of being wrong.
False. I'm not sure what "science" you're thinking of. Maybe you're thinking of "Art". Science is all about proving what's false to be true and what's true to be false. Please don't put down science as some emotional "Make you feel better" crap.
I'm a little late to respond to this, but I feel it needs addressing.
This quote reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the scientific method. Science does not prove anything, it only disproves. The scientific method helps us to put forth theories that make the most sense based on evidence. It also helps us to disprove theories that evidence contradicts or that can be more easily explained. Science progresses through disproving theories that don't hold up to testing and evidence and by replacing those theories with theories that hold up to testing.
Furthermore, the very idea of a scientific truth is inherently at odds with the scientific method itself. Truths don't have to be tested or scrutinized, because they are true. Science, which continually progresses with new findings, would halt if people accepted anything as true.
You will learn quickly that facts have no meaning to some people...it's still fun to mess with them though
DSD wrote:
Ailitardif wrote:
DSD wrote:
I'm going to an End of the World party on the 20th. I cant wait to see the back pedaling on the 22 though.
To be fair, the billboards just say May 21....no year. Pretty easy backpedaling on that one.
Not true. And for the hell of it I looked up the URL blasted on her car:
http://www.wecanknow.com/
Hmmm...the billboards here don't have a year.
At least it's a Saturday, I would hate to have the world end while I'm at work.
Ailitardif wrote:
DSD wrote:
Ailitardif wrote:
DSD wrote:
I'm going to an End of the World party on the 20th. I cant wait to see the back pedaling on the 22 though.
To be fair, the billboards just say May 21....no year. Pretty easy backpedaling on that one.
Not true. And for the hell of it I looked up the URL blasted on her car:
http://www.wecanknow.com/
Hmmm...the billboards here don't have a year.
At least it's a Saturday, I would hate to have the world end while I'm at work.
I dunno. I think the world ending on one of your 2 days off would show proof that God has a warped sense of humor.
Edited, Apr 29th 2011 9:50pm by DSD
Ok, so there's no argument or evidence for the existence of something. Therefore, you believe in it. The correct stance is what rdm takes, agnosticism. But since we're talking practicality here, atheism works just as well. Agnosticism, in a sense, covers my own branch of atheism, as agnosticism requires first a statement of disbelief. It allows for possibilities, as I do, but you cannot simultaneously believe and not hold a belief. And you leave yourself all the work in the world when you simply say a God must exist (it doesn't have to) or that a God does exist. You still haven't shown that it's your god. What I can comfortably say, however, is that most of the dogmas and teachings of Christianity are harmful and nearly all are damn near certainly close to untrue.
As for your view on science... you're an idiot. Have you read nothing on the subject? It has nothing to do with making us feel good or whatever you seem to be talking about, it's an empirical analysis of the universe. The conclusions drawn from science are not absolutes, nor do they claim to be. They're the best we have, and when something better comes along, we change the theory to fit the evidence, not the evidence to fit the theory. It's literally the process of whittling away the chance of being wrong with the full knowledge that we can never be certain that we're right.
As for your view on science... you're an idiot. Have you read nothing on the subject? It has nothing to do with making us feel good or whatever you seem to be talking about, it's an empirical analysis of the universe. The conclusions drawn from science are not absolutes, nor do they claim to be. They're the best we have, and when something better comes along, we change the theory to fit the evidence, not the evidence to fit the theory. It's literally the process of whittling away the chance of being wrong with the full knowledge that we can never be certain that we're right.
rdmcandie wrote:
Let me state it this way: There is no evidence or argument strong enough to fully justify disbelief in a deity. Prove me wrong.
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#184Almalieque,
Posted: Apr 30 2011 at 10:25 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Are you talking to me? In either case, you can't say "or whatever seem to be talking about" (which clearly displays you not understanding the argument) while calling that same argument on science wrong. That doesn't even make any sense. If you're referring to me, I explicitly said that science has nothing to do with making us feel good.
#185rdmcandie,
Posted: Apr 30 2011 at 1:41 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Thats not what I said at all. I said that there is no evidence that God does not exist. For all we know the knowledge we have gained over time was him opening the secrets of the cosmos to us. We could argue all day about it, but take gravity for example. Did the apple fall because of gravity, or did God make the apple fall and thus give birth to the idea of Gravity. Perhaps God is what keeps us from floating away, perhaps gravity is an actual force of nature.
How is it that so many Christians can't seem to reconcile faith and science?
I'm a practicing Christian and I'm perfectly happy to disregard parts, indeed, entire books of the Old Testament in regards to my beliefs. Deuteronomy, Kings 1 and 2, Chronicles etc have no bearing whatsoever on my relationship with the LORD, so ignoring the creation myth doesn't bother me a bit.
I'm a practicing Christian and I'm perfectly happy to disregard parts, indeed, entire books of the Old Testament in regards to my beliefs. Deuteronomy, Kings 1 and 2, Chronicles etc have no bearing whatsoever on my relationship with the LORD, so ignoring the creation myth doesn't bother me a bit.
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.
Almalieque wrote:
LeWoVoc wrote:
As for your view on science... you're an idiot. Have you read nothing on the subject? It has nothing to do with making us feel good or whatever you seem to be talking about, it's an empirical analysis of the universe. The conclusions drawn from science are not absolutes, nor do they claim to be. They're the best we have, and when something better comes along, we change the theory to fit the evidence, not the evidence to fit the theory. It's literally the process of whittling away the chance of being wrong with the full knowledge that we can never be certain that we're right.
Are you talking to me? In either case, you can't say "or whatever seem to be talking about" (which clearly displays you not understanding the argument) while calling that same argument on science wrong. That doesn't even make any sense. If you're referring to me, I explicitly said that science has nothing to do with making us feel good.
#188Almalieque,
Posted: Apr 30 2011 at 3:57 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) So the fact that you made up something in place of an argument that you misread, somehow proves my point of science wrong? Interesting....
Almalieque wrote:
LeWoVoc wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
LeWoVoc wrote:
As for your view on science... you're an idiot. Have you read nothing on the subject? It has nothing to do with making us feel good or whatever you seem to be talking about, it's an empirical analysis of the universe. The conclusions drawn from science are not absolutes, nor do they claim to be. They're the best we have, and when something better comes along, we change the theory to fit the evidence, not the evidence to fit the theory. It's literally the process of whittling away the chance of being wrong with the full knowledge that we can never be certain that we're right.
Are you talking to me? In either case, you can't say "or whatever seem to be talking about" (which clearly displays you not understanding the argument) while calling that same argument on science wrong. That doesn't even make any sense. If you're referring to me, I explicitly said that science has nothing to do with making us feel good.
So the fact that you made up something in place of an argument that you misread, somehow proves my point of science wrong? Interesting....
The part that you continue to be wrong on is your claim that science proves something. Try to read this post slowly and admit, as I did, when you realize your comprehension mistake.
Edited, Apr 30th 2011 4:11pm by LeWoVoc
Friar Bijou wrote:
How is it that so many Christians can't seem to reconcile faith and science?
I'm a practicing Christian and I'm perfectly happy to disregard parts, indeed, entire books of the Old Testament in regards to my beliefs. Deuteronomy, Kings 1 and 2, Chronicles etc have no bearing whatsoever on my relationship with the LORD, so ignoring the creation myth doesn't bother me a bit.
I'm a practicing Christian and I'm perfectly happy to disregard parts, indeed, entire books of the Old Testament in regards to my beliefs. Deuteronomy, Kings 1 and 2, Chronicles etc have no bearing whatsoever on my relationship with the LORD, so ignoring the creation myth doesn't bother me a bit.
Because there is plenty in the new testament that is equivalently indefensible. If you take out all the mythic elements, you are left with a book of morals and very little in the way of a religion.
Just as Planned.
rdmcandie wrote:
Thats not what I said at all. I said that there is no evidence that God does not exist.
Anything that doesn't exist has no proof that it doesn't exist.
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
bsphil wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
Thats not what I said at all. I said that there is no evidence that God does not exist.
Anything that doesn't exist has no proof that it doesn't exist.
Yeah, I read rdm's paragraph and thought to myself, "Man, Alma just keeps getting dumber." Then saw the author and went "Oh..."
LockeColeMA wrote:
bsphil wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
Thats not what I said at all. I said that there is no evidence that God does not exist.
Anything that doesn't exist has no proof that it doesn't exist.
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
LeWoVoc wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
LeWoVoc wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
LeWoVoc wrote:
As for your view on science... you're an idiot. Have you read nothing on the subject? It has nothing to do with making us feel good or whatever you seem to be talking about, it's an empirical analysis of the universe. The conclusions drawn from science are not absolutes, nor do they claim to be. They're the best we have, and when something better comes along, we change the theory to fit the evidence, not the evidence to fit the theory. It's literally the process of whittling away the chance of being wrong with the full knowledge that we can never be certain that we're right.
Are you talking to me? In either case, you can't say "or whatever seem to be talking about" (which clearly displays you not understanding the argument) while calling that same argument on science wrong. That doesn't even make any sense. If you're referring to me, I explicitly said that science has nothing to do with making us feel good.
So the fact that you made up something in place of an argument that you misread, somehow proves my point of science wrong? Interesting....
The part that you continue to be wrong on is your claim that science proves something. Try to read this post slowly and admit, as I did, when you realize your comprehension mistake.
Edited, Apr 30th 2011 4:11pm by LeWoVoc
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science wrote:
Science (from Latin: scientia meaning "knowledge") is an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world.[1][2][3][4] An older and closely related meaning still in use today is that of Aristotle, for whom scientific knowledge was a body of reliable knowledge that can be logically and rationally explained (see "History and etymology" section below).[5]
LockeColeMA wrote:
bsphil wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
Thats not what I said at all. I said that there is no evidence that God does not exist.
Anything that doesn't exist has no proof that it doesn't exist.
Yeah, I read rdm's paragraph and thought to myself, "Man, Alma just keeps getting dumber." Then saw the author and went "Oh..."
=( harsh.
Also how do you know a "God" does not exist though? Proof please, because it will be much easier for me to say I believe in evolution and science, without adding but there could be a chance that something coerced us to evolve(created us) this way and controls everything.
Ya know what I am saying? You can't prove the existence, or nonexistence, therefor the possibility remains that a "God" figure could exist or could not.
There is no proof either way. So there is no way to state for fact in one event or the other, some believe heavily that one does exist, others fiercely disbelieve, and others like myself, believe that it could be one way or the other.
But if you have undeniable proof of either position please share it.
Edited, Apr 30th 2011 9:50pm by rdmcandie
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.
I have no proof that pigs don't fly, or that a Flying Spaghetti Monster didn't create the universe, or that Alma isn't a massive ******. Why do you reject all of these things yet embrace your equally unproven idea?
rdmcandie wrote:
LockeColeMA wrote:
bsphil wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
Thats not what I said at all. I said that there is no evidence that God does not exist.
Anything that doesn't exist has no proof that it doesn't exist.
Yeah, I read rdm's paragraph and thought to myself, "Man, Alma just keeps getting dumber." Then saw the author and went "Oh..."
bsphil wrote:
Both [agnosticism and atheism], because atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive.
Atheism is the lack/denial of belief in a god or gods. Agnosticism is a lack/denial of certainty or ultimate knowledge. An agnostic atheist would be someone who does not believe in a god or gods but lacks absolute certain proof for this (lack of) belief - typically because logically you cannot prove nonexistence.
Most self-described atheists and agnostics are almost always all agnostic atheists.
Holy sh*t that's a lot of assonance.
Atheism is the lack/denial of belief in a god or gods. Agnosticism is a lack/denial of certainty or ultimate knowledge. An agnostic atheist would be someone who does not believe in a god or gods but lacks absolute certain proof for this (lack of) belief - typically because logically you cannot prove nonexistence.
Most self-described atheists and agnostics are almost always all agnostic atheists.
Holy sh*t that's a lot of assonance.
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
Majivo wrote:
I have no proof that pigs don't fly, or that a Flying Spaghetti Monster didn't create the universe, or that Alma isn't a massive ******.
Well it's about time someone admits that s/he doesn't have any proof to counter my overwhelming intelligence. As for the flying pigs and the FSM, there exist proof, YOU just don't posses it.
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
Almalieque wrote:
Majivo wrote:
I have no proof that pigs don't fly, or that a Flying Spaghetti Monster didn't create the universe, or that Alma isn't a massive ******.
Well it's about time someone admits that s/he doesn't have any proof to counter my overwhelming intelligence. As for the flying pigs and the FSM, there exist proof, YOU just don't posses it.
I don't know, spaghetti is pretty damn good. I assume we are talking about the entree and not just the pasta? Anyway the entree is godlike in its deliciousness.
Almalieque wrote:
Majivo wrote:
I have no proof that pigs don't fly, or that a Flying Spaghetti Monster didn't create the universe, or that Alma isn't a massive ******.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Recent Visitors: 312
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (312)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Atheism or agnosticism?
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC