Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Im sorry atheists are not stupid

138 replies to this topic
Kristian.
  • Kristian.

    5KΣΓ

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 26 Nov 2011
  • None

#31

Posted 05 September 2013 - 11:35 AM

QUOTE (Sleepy187. @ Thursday, Sep 5 2013, 14:25)
However, atheism has a lot to do with science, since 80% of the atheists I've seen so far simply talk about science, science this, science that.

It has everything to do with logic? I'm pretty sure it's something supernatural going on behind the universe, since it constantly expands, every second, it's logical that something supernatural occurs, no?

So what? A lot of atheists believe in aliens too for example (I personally don't and I am an atheist), but that doesn't mean it's an essential part of being an atheist. Atheism is simply denying the existence of god based on logic.

I don't think it has to be supernatural. I see no evidence of there being a god.
  • Secura likes this

Mr. Sleepy
  • Mr. Sleepy

    Infamous

  • Members
  • Joined: 05 Jul 2013
  • United-Kingdom

#32

Posted 05 September 2013 - 11:38 AM

QUOTE (_____ @ Thursday, Sep 5 2013, 14:35)
QUOTE (Sleepy187. @ Thursday, Sep 5 2013, 14:25)
However, atheism has a lot to do with science, since 80% of the atheists I've seen so far simply talk about science, science this, science that.

It has everything to do with logic? I'm pretty sure it's something supernatural going on behind the universe, since it constantly expands, every second, it's logical that something supernatural occurs, no?

So what? A lot of atheists believe in aliens too for example (I personally don't and I am an atheist), but that doesn't mean it's an essential part of being an atheist. Atheism is simply denying the existence of god based on logic.

I don't think it has to be supernatural. I see no evidence of there being a god.

Just because YOU don't personally see it, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Believing in a God is also logical, just because you believe in a higher existence it doesn't mean you're illogical. Does it now?

Atheism is also a sort of belief, since you "believe" that God doesn't exist.

Ottae
  • Ottae

    (/'ɒteɪ/)

  • Zaibatsu
  • Joined: 16 Jun 2005
  • None

#33

Posted 05 September 2013 - 11:50 AM

QUOTE (Sleepy187. @ Thursday, Sep 5 2013, 12:38)
QUOTE (_____ @ Thursday, Sep 5 2013, 14:35)
QUOTE (Sleepy187. @ Thursday, Sep 5 2013, 14:25)
However, atheism has a lot to do with science, since 80% of the atheists I've seen so far simply talk about science, science this, science that.

It has everything to do with logic? I'm pretty sure it's something supernatural going on behind the universe, since it constantly expands, every second, it's logical that something supernatural occurs, no?

So what? A lot of atheists believe in aliens too for example (I personally don't and I am an atheist), but that doesn't mean it's an essential part of being an atheist. Atheism is simply denying the existence of god based on logic.

I don't think it has to be supernatural. I see no evidence of there being a god.

Just because YOU don't personally see it, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Believing in a God is also logical, just because you believe in a higher existence it doesn't mean you're illogical. Does it now?

Atheism is also a sort of belief, since you "believe" that God doesn't exist.

But no one has seen it. Logically if no one has witnessed a higher being and there is no evidence to claim that such a being exists, then it does not exist.

Please show me one piece of evidence that confirms the existence of a higher being. "Faith" doesn't count.

Atheism isn't about "believing" there isn't a god, it's knowing there isn't a god. An atheist doesn't need to have faith that something doesn't exist.

GrandMaster Smith
  • GrandMaster Smith

    ©

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Apr 2006
  • None

#34

Posted 06 September 2013 - 02:10 AM Edited by GrandMaster Smith, 06 September 2013 - 02:10 AM.

Might be off-topic, might be on-topic, but my view on religion is that if it has yet to be scientifically proven, it didn't happen.

Lightning Strike, that was beautiful. How long did that take you to write?

 

 

Can you empirically prove that January 19th, 1729 occurred? 

 

Can you scientifically prove your mother/father/spouse loves you?


The Pizza Delivery Guy
  • The Pizza Delivery Guy

    If You Know What I Mean

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 Jan 2013
  • None

#35

Posted 06 September 2013 - 02:43 AM Edited by The Pizza Delivery Guy, 06 September 2013 - 02:44 AM.

 

 

Can you empirically prove that January 19th, 1729 occurred? 

 

Can you scientifically prove your mother/father/spouse loves you?

1) That's what history books are for.

 

2) That's what lie detectors are for.


GrandMaster Smith
  • GrandMaster Smith

    ©

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Apr 2006
  • None

#36

Posted 06 September 2013 - 02:52 AM

1) That's what history books are for.

 

2) That's what lie detectors are for.

 

 

History books tell us the white man came and had nice turkey dinners with Native Americans. History books do not empirically prove anything.

 

Lie detectors can be beat by simply learning to control your breathing/heart rate. Again, these do not empirically prove anything.


Raavi
  • Raavi

    Allergic to bullsh*t

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 27 Jan 2012
  • Vatican-City
  • Winner of World Cup 2014 Prediction League
    Best Forum Ledby 2013
    Most Improved 2013

#37

Posted 06 September 2013 - 02:53 AM Edited by Raavi, 06 September 2013 - 02:53 AM.

 

 

Can you empirically prove that January 19th, 1729 occurred? 

 

Can you scientifically prove your mother/father/spouse loves you?

 

We can date anything up to 60.000 years back via c14 dating, more commonly referred to as 'carbon dating'. From there you can go back even further using uranium-thorium dating and so forth. No to your second question, simply because it isn't even scientifically set in stone what 'love' really is.

  • stu likes this

GrandMaster Smith
  • GrandMaster Smith

    ©

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Apr 2006
  • None

#38

Posted 06 September 2013 - 02:58 AM Edited by GrandMaster Smith, 06 September 2013 - 02:59 AM.

 

We can date anything up to 60.000 years back via c14 dating, more commonly referred to as 'carbon dating'. From there you can go back even further using uranium-thorium dating and so forth. No to your second question, simply because it isn't even scientifically set in stone what 'love' really is.

 

I'm not sure people understand what empirical proof means.. 

 

How are you to verify something that is said to be 50,000 years old through direct observation?

 

 

 

And are you saying since science cannot explain love that it doesn't exist?


Zizo.
  • Zizo.

    DYOM Designer

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Aug 2012
  • Tunisia
  • Best DYOM Mission 2012 [Resident Evil 4]

#39

Posted 06 September 2013 - 03:11 AM

 

I'm not sure people understand what empirical proof means.. 

 

How are you to verify something that is said to be 50,000 years old through direct observation?

 

 

 

And are you saying since science cannot explain love that it doesn't exist?

In the same way we know in which era dinosaurs existed.

 

Love can be observed in some ways. God can't be observed in any way.


Raavi
  • Raavi

    Allergic to bullsh*t

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 27 Jan 2012
  • Vatican-City
  • Winner of World Cup 2014 Prediction League
    Best Forum Ledby 2013
    Most Improved 2013

#40

Posted 06 September 2013 - 03:21 AM

And are you saying since science cannot explain love that it doesn't exist?

 

Atheism is disbelief of the existence of an almighty being or a god/gods, full stop. What else they believe in is completely irrelevant. You can be an atheist, but believe in the easter bunny.

  • Secura and Tacymist like this

GrandMaster Smith
  • GrandMaster Smith

    ©

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Apr 2006
  • None

#41

Posted 06 September 2013 - 03:58 AM

In the same way we know in which era dinosaurs existed.

 

Love can be observed in some ways. God can't be observed in any way.

 

And how do we know which era dinosaurs lived in, how do we empirically prove it without any sort of way to directly observe it?

 

Dinosaur bones have been tested by C14 dating and have shown dates of less than 20,000 years which contradicts what other dating methods say. If you care to see the article I'd be happy to dig around for it. 

 

BTW they don't even date the fossils themselves, they date the rocks around them then assume the bones are the same age.. much to many assumptions and zero ways to actually verify it =/= empirical proof.

 

 

Atheism is disbelief of the existence of an almighty being or a god/gods, full stop. What else they believe in is completely irrelevant. You can be an atheist, but believe in the easter bunny.

 

Okay I never said you can't believe in the Easter bunny if you wanted to, what I'm asking is do you believe love exists despite any empirical proof for it?

 

And how do you empirically verify (directly observe/experience) dates that are 60,000 years + ago?


EscoLehGo
  • EscoLehGo

    Ya Dingus

  • Members
  • Joined: 04 Nov 2011

#42

Posted 06 September 2013 - 04:06 AM

Can you prove that what I sh*t last night actually entered my mouth and went through digestion in my stomach before being propelled violently out of my anus in a simmering stew of half solid stool?


GrandMaster Smith
  • GrandMaster Smith

    ©

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Apr 2006
  • None

#43

Posted 06 September 2013 - 04:15 AM

Can you prove that what I sh*t last night actually entered my mouth and went through digestion in my stomach before being propelled violently out of my anus in a simmering stew of half solid stool?

 

No I cannot, I can only rely on faith and logic that you didn't shove that food up through your ass into your stomach to then be digested and shat out instead of just eating it through your mouth.

 

But according to some people's logic here on these forums since it can't empirically be proven, none of that ever even happened therefore is merely a distant fairytale.

 

I understand how the word faith carries a lot of baggage and people avoid using it in fear of being associated with being a believer but in reality faith is used on a daily basis much more than many realize. Empirical science is actually extremely limiting and to assume it can tell us everything there is to know about the universe it insane.


EscoLehGo
  • EscoLehGo

    Ya Dingus

  • Members
  • Joined: 04 Nov 2011

#44

Posted 06 September 2013 - 04:22 AM

Oh ye of little faith, logic? How do you know the sh*t wasn't manifested by a higher being helping me get the spiritual darkness out of my body? How do you know the sh*t wasn't actually a big ball of negativity that was violently shot through my anus with the help of my creator? You can't empirically disprove that.

  • stu and Tacymist like this

The Pizza Delivery Guy
  • The Pizza Delivery Guy

    If You Know What I Mean

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 Jan 2013
  • None

#45

Posted 06 September 2013 - 04:26 AM

And how do you empirically verify (directly observe/experience) dates that are 60,000 years + ago?

When you look through a telescope into space, the further out you look, the further back in time you are going. That's why when stars burst, and people on Earth observe them, astronomers go back into their record books to see when it was they may have observed that burst through a telescope. That's how you look back in time.


GrandMaster Smith
  • GrandMaster Smith

    ©

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Apr 2006
  • None

#46

Posted 06 September 2013 - 04:30 AM

Oh ye of little faith, logic? How do you know the sh*t wasn't manifested by a higher being helping me get the spiritual darkness out of my body? How do you know the sh*t wasn't actually a big ball of negativity that was violently shot through my anus with the help of my creator? You can't empirically disprove that.

 

 

Well to begin with I can't even prove that you even took a sh*t last night so for you to ask me to empirically prove it's origins would be impossible. 


Seattle Cracker
  • Seattle Cracker

    That awkward white guy

  • Members
  • Joined: 21 Mar 2012

#47

Posted 06 September 2013 - 04:33 AM

Kiss my ass, how about that?


Runey
  • Runey

    Boss

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 19 Apr 2007
  • United-States

#48

Posted 06 September 2013 - 04:39 AM

Okay, ladies, what's going on here?


Cilogy
  • Cilogy

    SILL•uh•jee

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Jul 2007
  • United-States

#49

Posted 06 September 2013 - 05:00 AM Edited by Cilogy, 06 September 2013 - 05:00 AM.

Yeah that topic was useless, but let me tell you this...im sure 99% of you people have been warned about the end times and tribulation, Now If it happens in our lifetime, you will have a chance to be saved big time.

Now im trying to be a real man here, lets leave it at that.

Again, im sorry. Not gonna be prideful here

 

I've already accepted GTA V as my personal savior.


Seattle Cracker
  • Seattle Cracker

    That awkward white guy

  • Members
  • Joined: 21 Mar 2012

#50

Posted 06 September 2013 - 05:03 AM

Oh come one how is this thread more intellectually significant than mine. Discrimination and such, it's bogus.


Runey
  • Runey

    Boss

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 19 Apr 2007
  • United-States

#51

Posted 06 September 2013 - 05:07 AM

3mR45.jpg

 

 

Hmmmmmm? 


GrandMaster Smith
  • GrandMaster Smith

    ©

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Apr 2006
  • None

#52

Posted 06 September 2013 - 05:08 AM

When you look through a telescope into space, the further out you look, the further back in time you are going. That's why when stars burst, and people on Earth observe them, astronomers go back into their record books to see when it was they may have observed that burst through a telescope. That's how you look back in time.

 

 

This is still indirect observation.. you don't actually magically time travel into the past just by looking up into the sky, you're seeing light that is still traveling in the present moment. 


EscoLehGo
  • EscoLehGo

    Ya Dingus

  • Members
  • Joined: 04 Nov 2011

#53

Posted 06 September 2013 - 05:09 AM

 

 

Well to begin with I can't even prove that you even took a sh*t last night so for you to ask me to empirically prove it's origins would be impossible. 

My point exactly, I'll end my argument with this: He died for our sins. Thank you.


Banana
  • Banana

    Ghetto Star

  • Zaibatsu
  • Joined: 23 May 2006
  • United-States

#54

Posted 06 September 2013 - 05:12 AM Edited by Banana., 06 September 2013 - 05:15 AM.

This is still indirect observation.. you don't actually magically time travel into the past just by looking up into the sky, you're seeing light that is still traveling in the present moment.


No, because space is huge and objects are extremely far away, the speed of light causes a delay. So what you are looking at in the telescope isn't what is happening now. If the sun stopped shining there would still be light on Earth for 8 minutes.

GrandMaster Smith
  • GrandMaster Smith

    ©

  • Members
  • Joined: 02 Apr 2006
  • None

#55

Posted 06 September 2013 - 05:15 AM

My point exactly, I'll end my argument with this: He died for our sins. Thank you.

 

That it requires faith? I don't think anyone's trying to really argue that than you. All I've been doing is showing you how faith is a requirement in day to day life whether you accept it or not. 

 

 

No, because space is huge and objects are extremely far away, the speed of light causes a delay. So what you are looking at in the telescope isn't what's happening now.

 

I really can't believe how many people have such an issue understanding the difference between indirect science and empirical science.. So many people here seem to think they're the same exact thing.

  • Lucchese likes this

Seattle Cracker
  • Seattle Cracker

    That awkward white guy

  • Members
  • Joined: 21 Mar 2012

#56

Posted 06 September 2013 - 05:15 AM

My point exactly, I'll end my argument with this: He died for our sins. Thank you.

 

But what if we don't have sin? What if sin is an inherently flawed and unproven concept about human nature? No. The historical Christ died because the Jew's didn't like the chap.


Bigs
  • Bigs

    OG

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 Jul 2004

#57

Posted 06 September 2013 - 05:16 AM Edited by Bigs, 06 September 2013 - 05:17 AM.

Kiss my ass, how about that?

 

artie-fufkin-01-645-75.jpg

 

"Kick my ass! I'm not asking, I'm telling!"

 

Anyway, on topic: 

 

As Clarence Darrow says, "I am an agnostic; I do not pretend to know what many ignorant men are sure of." I find science and religion to be two of the most intriguing subjects to discuss (especially over a couple a drinks), but I see it like an exciting sports match between two teams I have no dedication towards. I could never get heated or brutally offended/defensive about the subject.

  • Seattle Cracker likes this

Seattle Cracker
  • Seattle Cracker

    That awkward white guy

  • Members
  • Joined: 21 Mar 2012

#58

Posted 06 September 2013 - 05:18 AM

 

As Clarence Darrow says, "I am an agnostic; I do not pretend to know what many ignorant men are sure of." I find science and religion to be two of the most intriguing subjects to discuss (especially over a couple a drinks), but I see it like an exciting sports match between two teams I have no dedication towards. I could never get heated or brutally offended/defensive about the subject.

 

This I can respect.


Failure
  • Failure

    .

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 11 Apr 2007
  • None

#59

Posted 06 September 2013 - 10:04 AM Edited by elanman, 06 September 2013 - 10:05 AM.


I have no issue with theists themselves and debate with the more fervent amongst them is futile. However, I vehemently dislike the way certain theists attempt to demerit science or denounce it as a disorganised collection of half-baked theories (which it is not). Honestly, if you don't like science and reason, that's fine, but please don't discredit that of which you have no understanding (for example, dinosaurs and hominids did not coexist).

Why do so many of you assume that science and faith are mutually exclusive? Georg Cantor, Sir Isaac Newton, Michael Faraday and James Clerk Maxwell were all religious men who also made incredible contributions to how we think about mathematics and reality. If anything, their belief in a deity encouraged them to learn more about the world around them, which they considered to be his work--Cantor often said that spiritual guidance is what urged him to commit to his groundbreaking ideas about set theory.

I am an atheist. I feel no connection to a divine power and subsequently feel no compulsion to pray or heed the word of theists. I have very cynical views regarding Reb Joshua (Jesus of Nazareth), have a personal reverence towards the Jews and a love of mathematics and physics. However, were I to voice my views to a Christian they'd probably become very angry, so I choose not to. With that said, it seems that many theists on this board refuse to pay me the same courtesy by attacking science or rattling on about the fire which I shall supposedly endure for eternity upon my death simply as I reject their messiah.

 


Typhus
  • Typhus

    OG

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 11 Sep 2007

#60

Posted 06 September 2013 - 10:16 AM

All I wish is that more people spoke of religion in the way you would speak about a good story. Granted, the Bible doesn't have as many interesting characters as the Greek pantheon, but it's still an interesting read with a few good tales.

 

Yet, if I attempt to interpret the characters in my own manner, I am called 'stupid', 'ignorant' and a variety of other meaningless little slurs. The truth is that I respect the Bible in terms of it being a fictional tale, and I don't mean that in a disparaging way, I genuinely feel that creative fiction has the power to transform lives for the better.

 

I suppose what I'm saying is that I wish more Christians would be able to rationally discuss their own mythology and have a sense of humour about the incredible characters they read about, or at least try and listen to alternative takes on them.

But I guess I would say that, wouldn't I? I read the Old Testament and ended up rooting for Baal. And that Antichrist guy seems pretty nifty, too.

  • Rudy likes this




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users