Rabid atheists

Post Reply New Topic

What nonsense. Science is not a religion, it is the opposite of a religion. Scientists test assertions with empirical evidence, new theories that better explain the observations replace old theories or the old theories are subsumed and become parts of new theories. Religion, on the other hand, is based on unquestionable dogmas.

D'oooooza is a right-wing nut-job.

I think one could also say that atheism takes a deductive approach to questions of divinity; while agnosticism take an inductive approach to those same questions. It seems to me that the reason Huxley coined the term "agnosticism" was to establish a more inductive approach for questioning divinity as opposed to a deductive, or first principles, method.

Science goes against "conventional reasoning" ?? Whose conventions?

There are facts in science. For example, auxin (indole-acetic acid) is in fact a plant growth hormone in many higher plants. That has been proven. Over time, the exact role of auxin will be better defined; more plant hormones have been (and will be discovered). So our ideas about auxin will not be static. But the basic fact that many plants produce this is about as up for debate as the idea that humans need insulin.

Carl Sagan : You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep-seated need to believe.

There are people who call themselves skeptics, while truly, skepticism is taking an agnostic approach at things, and not completely refuting them, while at least taking a hypotesis to a more likely conclusion, but with no complete certainty. Scientifically, there is no evidence to prove or disprove God's existance, so strong atheism tends to be the same way to a strong believer, believing with faith about the existence or non-existence of God(s)


Evolution vs Creationism does not necessarily means Atheism vs Theism, and as there is evidence that suggests Evolution to be the most likely conclusion, it doesn't actually deny the existance of God, neither the Big Bang theory does, however they contradict the Bible and religious dogmas which they state Creationism, but this is not necessarily linked to atheism.

I'm responding to the original post, didn't feel like reading through the four pages. I used to be like that. It may have been partly because I was a teenager, but there are some otherwise inteligent athiests who can get like that, and I think its because Religion/Philosphy/Politics can be such a huge part of who you are. My becoming an athiest wasn't just a simple "oh, ya know, I don't think I believe in god today." It was a long and gruesome debate with myself, with alot of emotions tied with it. Bringing up the subject, it brings back some of the emotions.

Another reason is... well... there are some religious people who are like that. Raving lunatics that are only tolerated because they say they're christian. (NOTE: Not saying all christians are lunatics, read that again.) I could easily go grab several references, but chances are, religion aside, you know what I'm talking about. And when talking with a new person that you know nothing about, hearing their religion, you can associate several traits to them. Problem is, if you've heard the crazy christians, then you might think all of them are like that.

So... the reason I'm not like that anymore? I found out good people can be of any religion, with any political leaning. Its easier to leave the emotion out of a rational debate now.

Again, read The God Delusion. Richard Dawkins does a good job of explaining why science and evolution logically lead to (de facto) atheism. The difference between being and agnostic towards Jehova and the Flying Spaghetti Monster is negligable, and therefore we can conclude, that although we can't disprove either, both are almost certianly, equally false.

Thanks for pointing it out, speeeling was never one of my strong points.












Hmmm Interesting point. I got this quote from Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion" so I figured that he had done his homework on that quote and it was legit. I think I'll have to do some digging to find where that quote came from.

then please explain and give me rough numbers as to what are the chances that the scientific theory of creation acutally happened. Think about it on multiple levels its like atleast 1 in a million on multiple counts. If you are right then facts would be facts but similarly every year a supposed "fact" is changed because theories were wrong and research was not done correctly and the concept of pure research is an illusion since every variable cannot be controlled. Science also examines small parts of things without looking at the bigger theories. Lets look at one ...

Ghosts don't exist

How do we know Ghosts don't exist?

There is no evidence to support that statement. Everything can be explained and the ones that cannot be explained have done poor research with out of control variables.

How would we know what to look for?

uhhh we look for different forms of energy I think ...

What if the energy your looking for is not a known type of energy?

nonsense we know all types of energy ! !!

I could go on and on but I think the point is clear. Science doesn't understand most of the thing it bargains to and honestly they won't because half the time they are either looking for things through theories of the broader topics that their subject falls in. Which makes it that their facts are false due to we know two little about the world and its machinizations to offer any "facts" about anything which makes scientists fall into the realm of theorists but thats my opinion.

Auxin may be a plant growth hormone but as things change its role may change making it not a fact but a theory since we do not understand why it makes the plant grow. It may have to do with other chemicals and its reactions to those chemicals and if plants were stripped of that chemical but still functioned that fact could be false in just a few years. It is also based on the belief that its purely chemical reaction which may or may not be correct because machinizations of the world as it is now is vague and probably on multiple levels basic. So is it a fact right this second it is but does that mean that it is all Auxin is no we may find better tools and new understandings which show that Auxin may have more going on for it that caused it to be a plant growth hormone. I hope I didn't confuse anybody with this.

This is a straw-man argument. Science will never say that ghosts don't exist, they will say that ghosts most likely don't exist due to the fact that there's not a shred of evidence to prove them.

In some cases, you have to conclude, that an absence of evidence IS evidence of absence. Take bigfoot for example. With all the looking that we've been doing, we should've found some indesputable evidence by now. If ghosts exist in this world, there should have been evidence of some kind for their existence by now.

science works on a set of thinking that puts themselves in a box. They don't understand the variables of the environment they are working with, they do not know what they are looking for as proof so how will they find anything? They are working on theories established on their mindset where alot of things that are disproven most likely work outside of that box.

Evidence is a subjective term because to know what is evidence we would have to know alot of things that science does not and possibly is not able to.

Now isn't this a nice little argument. People who devote their entire lives to the discovery of the world, are close minded and don't know anything..... will you please enlighten us? and could you do so without the usless piece of nihilism you threw in at the end.

Ugh, Abangyarudo is a perfect example of how religion apologists are coming to use BS postmodernist arguments.

It's nice to not be the only person in the room who noticed this.