heh, I hope I am wrong too.I am a deist, which in all practical applications, equates to an atheist who hopes he is wrong and there's an afterlife.
I just am not going to let worrying about it run my life. Live with honesty and respect for others, care for those who need help, raise decent children to live on after me.
In those choices I am comfortable with having very Christian friends who fully agree with the last part of that philosophy. , I even let one of them talk me into listening to "mere christianity" by C.S. Lewis once or twice. What a load of self-congratulatory bilge, yuck.
I pity you dude.
So many logical fallacies, so little time. I skipped the strawman/appeal to ridicule.
9 sentences, three logical fallacies.
An idea's ultimate truth is not determined by how many people believe it.
Atheists have a lot of hope actually, and I think faith is, well, stupid. Humans are better off without it, IMO.
Owned.
So many logical fallacies, so little time. I skipped the strawman/appeal to ridicule.
9 sentences, three logical fallacies.
An idea's ultimate truth is not determined by how many people believe it.
Atheists have a lot of hope actually, and I think faith is, well, stupid. Humans are better off without it, IMO.
The fact that atheists are the ones constantly pointing out the fallacies in religious peoples' thinking truly suggests that they're more intelligent.
People are fallible. Atheists are no different. A high IQ doesn't mean that you are always right or your opinion holds more weight than that of another.
Could belief in a deity be right? Of course it could. When looked at from a scientific viewpoint, it is impossible to deny that possibility. People cannot claim to know the depths and intricacies of the universe without actually exploring all of the possibilities it holds. Think about it logically. How in the are we supposed to know for FACT that there isn't something in the universe that is beyond our comprehension when we can't even find out how many different species of living creature are on our own damn planet? Humans haven't fully explored the depths of the oceans, or even the jungles of the Amazon and yet, we are supposed to know all the answers to the universe?
To me, denying the possibility of a being greater than my own understanding is very close-minded and arrogant. If you are indeed smarter.... give everyone the answers they seek with your proofs of infallibility. If you can't do it, then shut your trap about those who are searching for those same answers in their own way.
Last edited by xellos88330; 10-16-2014 at 06:32 PM.
I don't know of any atheist that denies the existence of God. Not even Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens--the leaders of the New Atheist movement today, who are among the most outspoken non-believers in the world--deny the existence of God. They merely point out that there is no evidence for His existence, and hence, posit that there is no good reason to believe in Him.
Science cannot disprove the existence of God. But that's because it's impossible to prove a negative. Science cannot disprove the existence of fairies or unicorns either. It just makes more sense to assume that they don't exist, because there really is no reason to think that they do.
So why call out people on a major issue based purely on assumption? Are you not basing the argument on an assumption (that science can explain everything) the same exact way as the believer assumes (based on the holy books etc.) that a deity does exist?
One can claim that it is only logical to assume it based on pure intelligence of the person, but that person would be ignoring the fact that numerous times in recorded history the logical choice that was made based upon the current knowledge was proven illogical in hindsight due to knowledge that wasn't currently known.
One more thing. Science isn't perfect, nor are the methods to improving it. There are even some places in the universe where mathematics don't function properly.
First of all, I didn't say that science can explain everything, nor will I pretend that it can. Obviously, there are still questions about which science still has yet no answers on. But just because it doesn't have them now doesn't mean it never will.
Second, that doesn't detract from the fact that science--not religion--is the single most effective means humanity has today of obtaining knowledge about the nature of the universe. Why is that? Because the former produces knowledge based on evidence, whose veracity can then be verified empirically by third-party observers. The latter, on the other, makes use of no evidence whatsoever, and relies purely on faith and the passage of time. This is an hetical to critical thinking, because it encourages people not to think, not to probe, and not to question, but to merely accept that this is the way things are because their religion says so.
Third, you're making a false equivalency here about the assumptions atheists and theists make. Atheists assume that God doesn't exist because there is no good reason to believe in his existence. For atheists, this is the default position to take. There are no good reasons to believe that Big Foot or the Loch Ness Monster exist either, so the default position is to assume they don't exist. Hence, the onus is on the believers of God--or Big Foot / the Loch Ness Monster--to prove that he exists. And using a holy book to make that case just doesn't cut it, because it is only religious believers themselves who subscribe to their authenticity in the first place. That's circular reasoning--a logical fallacy.
I mean, lying about graduating from an Ivy League school is one thing. , people applying for jobs make up worse things everyday.
Even getting duped by Twitter parody accounts is relatively tame compared to NBA players getting catfished.
Getting so upset by being put on blast by a poster whose figurative you guzzled on this board that you faked your own death and threatened lawsuits? That's going beyond 'socially awkward person on the Internet' and into 'potential psycho'. No wonder nobody wants to see you at GTGs anymore.
Brief & accurate translation:
"I am truthfully just a scared chicken- pussy who is terrified to attend a gtg because - well I am a pussy"
lol coming from the scared chicken- pussy who is terrified of revealing his beliefs
peter denied jeebus 3 times, how many times will you?
Why would I bind myself to beliefs?
Why would anyone with half a brain - limit themselves this way?
Don't seek the truth - just drop your opinions, drop your theories, drop your concepts,labels,conventions.
Put on a brand new mind.
You won't. You won't appreciate or understand the wisdom I freely gave you.
Go back to sleep again - this is all you've ever known.
You've never been to a gtg.
Pussy
bakla
Oh, you mean anaghkla is a he/she?
That explains everything.
I wonder how he/she is going to try to get out of this.
Get out of what?
Oh, you mean anaghkla is a he/she?
That explains everything.
I wonder how he/she is going to try to get out of this.
Europe?
lol geography
Oh, you mean anaghkla is a he/she?
That explains everything.
I wonder how he/she is going to try to get out of this.
I mean, lying about graduating from an Ivy League school is one thing. , people applying for jobs make up worse things everyday.
Even getting duped by Twitter parody accounts is relatively tame compared to NBA players getting catfished.
Getting so upset by being put on blast by a poster whose figurative you guzzled on this board that you faked your own death and threatened lawsuits? That's going beyond 'socially awkward person on the Internet' and into 'potential psycho'. No wonder nobody wants to see you at GTGs anymore.
In your first paragraph, you state that perhaps science will one day find the answer. That is a statement of faith. Science could in theory find out that "God(s)" do indeed exist. You are once again treading into the unknown. Everyone knows that religion has always been used as a way to reason and cope with natural phenomena beyond our logical/scientific understanding. This leads to my response to your second paragraph.First of all, I didn't say that science can explain everything, nor will I pretend that it can. Obviously, there are still questions about which science still has yet no answers on. But just because it doesn't have them now doesn't mean it never will.
Second, that doesn't detract from the fact that science--not religion--is the single most effective means humanity has today of obtaining knowledge about the nature of the universe. Why is that? Because the former produces knowledge based on evidence, whose veracity can then be verified empirically by third-party observers. The latter, on the other, makes use of no evidence whatsoever, and relies purely on faith and the passage of time. This is an hetical to critical thinking, because it encourages people not to think, not to probe, and not to question, but to merely accept that this is the way things are because their religion says so.
Third, you're making a false equivalency here about the assumptions atheists and theists make. Atheists assume that God doesn't exist because there is no good reason to believe in his existence. For atheists, this is the default position to take. There are no good reasons to believe that Big Foot or the Loch Ness Monster exist either, so the default position is to assume they don't exist. Hence, the onus is on the believers of God--or Big Foot / the Loch Ness Monster--to prove that he exists. And using a holy book to make that case just doesn't cut it, because it is only religious believers themselves who subscribe to their authenticity in the first place. That's circular reasoning--a logical fallacy.
Religion has long been used to reason or cope with natural phenomena. Whether or not it was correct was always a question which advanced the sciences further. Religion once stated that the Earth was the center of the universe. One person sought to see if that was really how it worked. Religion does not hamper critical thinking, but instead inspires it. The proof is in this thread in front of you. You also seem to completely misunderstand the holy books as well. You say that it isn't a good example of proof of a deity. I am actually inclined to agree. The book isn't meant to be a proof of existence in my eyes. The books are meant to teach for the betterment of mankind. They tell stories and within those stories are messages of awe and wonder. How do we know that the characters in the stories did not in fact exist? In many cases the subjects of the bible have been found to have existed from archeological finds having nothing to do with religion. The plagues were explained. Sodom and Gomorrah were found. The walls of Jericho from the Bible timeline were found. The Sea of Galilee still exists today as does the foundation of temple of Solomon and the city of Jerusalem. Proof has been uncovered by science that these phenomena could have existed. Can you without a shadow of a doubt still say that the Bible has no truth to it whatsoever although your science has found it to be possible?
How could I possibly be making a false equivalency between an assumption and another assumption? They are BOTH assumptions. An assumption is something that is accepted as being true without any proof otherwise. How can you say something is false based on an assumption? If you ask me, you are being just as deluded and blind as those people whom you are looking as deluded and blind. In reality, we ALL are deluded and blind because we cannot figure it all out.
You bring up the legend of bigfoot and the loch ness monster to assist your argument, but that is also a ridiculous thing to bring up. There is a scientific concept in paleontology called Lazarus taxon. The concept itself was named this due to something thought to have been extinct or missing resurfacing. Just like Lazarus being brought back from the dead by Jesus. Can you still say that bigfoot or Nessie couldn't exist?
Last edited by xellos88330; 10-17-2014 at 12:18 AM.
i think you missed the point. he never made the claim that bigfoot and nessie don't exist. as there is no evidence to their existence, the the default position is to assume they don't exist. same with unicorns, leprechauns, etc.
Whoops!!! Lol!! Meant to say "couldn't". Thanks for the catch.
I was trying to make the point that the default position shouldn't be that it doesn't exist, but only one that states that one cannot confirm or deny their existence based upon current knowledge and unknown possibilities.
A point I agree with.
And what SBM has been saying all along.
But then there are a couple of flakes above (see clumpussy and anagloser) who rather make this and every thread about me rather than the topic, they need to grow up.
Wonder which thread he'll take his ing to next.
Hey, you said you came back from the dead after Avante made you kill yourself.
That's noteworthy.
but then that same thing extends to the flying spaghetti monster, or any other en y than anybody can conjure up in their imagination.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
