Rabid atheists

Post Reply New Topic

guess thats a difference in opinion I consider it an unbiased opinion and not allowing biases to control my view on the world nor allowing anyone to forcefeed me how the world is supposed to work the same things that you find detestable about religion.

No, it's NOT a difference of opinion, you commited a error of logic. read the link.

Argument from ignorance

I think your missing my point. I don't know how to explain it any better, Arguement from Ignorance as the article you provided



Yet in your conversation you have commited the very act you accuse me of

Science has not been disproven so it is correct. <--- which seems to be your arguement correct me if I'm wrong.

My view is that to have facts and for science to be able to furfill its purpose we'd need to know everything about the world which is not possible. There is no way we can learn everything about the world because to look for other machinizations we'd atleast have to know what we are looking for. Also to note that logical fallacies are made much in the same vein as politic mandated religion to effectively forcefeed a subject without diversion people who want to argue something want an easy win option and thats what the choice of logical fallacy is.
You cannot win an arguement where such a defense is presented so instead of delcaring both sides as right because neither of the point of views can be proven incorrect they consider it a cheap shot and cry foul. While the more civilized of gentleman look at it as what it is its a sign that nothing can be proven or disproven due to lack of concrete evidence.

Last edited by Abangyarudo on 16 Dec 2007, 12:58 am, edited 1 time in total.

[sarcasm]Logic is just another social construct upholding rationalist, scientistic ideology![/sarcasm]

See thats the thing, where do these so called scientific hypothesis come from in the first place? Did the hypothesis come from science? Where did the first hypothesis come from? Science didn't create itself.

The other side of the logic argument is, sure you can argue the logic all you want, but everything is based on some kind of emotional premise. If people didn't already feel that god didn't exist on some level, the whole atheist argument would never work. Same goes for all the arguments for religion, if we didn't already feel that deities existed on some level, we would never argue it in the first place.

But see, then I wondered, why is it that humans have religion, but other animals don't. What makes us different from them? Our culture, our complex society, is so far from our natural instincts and drives, that religion was created to bring us back to that, to keep us going when neither our bodies, our minds or our emotions wanted to deal with the world any longer. That is what faith is, that is what religion is, and if you are in contact with society, it is a necessity. Some hermit out somewhere doesn't really need to worry about it, however.

thats alot of interesting questions stuff I usually wonder as well. It is also kinda the basis for the arguement if you think about it. Everyone shows the world as proof that science is real but science is just explaining events already present and the presence of these events don't actually mean those explanations are correct. Just my opinion though.

You are wrong. You're asking science to provide some kind of unidentified evidence, the nature of which, even you can't specify. I could simply take every argument you made, and replace "ghosts" with "Flying Spaghetti Monster" and it would be equally invalid. So far, you're trying to have a conversation about the unprovable, and therefore, a conversation about nothing. We can no more discuss the existance of ghosts that we can magical pink unicorns.

If you consider the existance of ghosts to be a scientific hypothesis, then fine, provide some evidence, I'm not going to let you get away with this nihlistic non-sense about denying the ability of science to deal with the subject.



I'd challenge anyone else on this site to decipher this gibberish.

For a second, let's assume that Abangyarudo is correct and science is, in fact, a form of religion.

What is the technology based on the ideas and 'facts' of non-scientific religion?
Exorcisms, rain dances, flights to Lourdes in hopes of miracles, and trepanation to let the devil out of the skulls of insane people.

What is the technology based on the ideas and 'facts' of scientific religion?
Spaceflight, brain surgery, computers, personal automobiles, antibiotics, scuba diving, etc.

Science may not be perfect, but it is far-and-away the best we have.

I'm saying the point of science was seen to be an unbiased view of explanations to create an alternative to religion instead of being an alternative it has been transformed into its own religion by the fanatic follows of science. Again you will keep saying that everythnig I say is gibberish because your wearing filters just like the fanatics of religion that you seem to poke fun at. In order for science to explain everythnig it would involve under its own guidelines completely controlled variables the world is not a completely understood nor contrallable variable which would then suggest that there are no facts and since science mostly concentrates in small categories it often neglects deeper understanding of the broader topic that catagory falls under hence leading to a poor analysis of the category they are working on. Your working under the conclusion that Science is right because effects can be reproduced the fact that the events can be reproduced is not an example of science being true as science is merely a way of explaining events so under that assumption that would mean science is based on multiple theories because in its current state it cannot provide facts.

As far as forgiving me theres nothing to forgive I call it how I see it and your drawing on rules for your little boxed in mentality of science and logic to make up for your lack of ability to refute the simple fact that I am right that if we're looking for a pure fact that it is not possible making science unable to function as an ultimate truth. In that way it is as bad as any religion while the studies are important science like religion should be taken with a gain of salt in most cases.

I agree but my problem is not with promoting religion its saying that science cannot be viewed as an ultimate truth and that respect should be given to religious views. Being atheist is fine but sitting around bashing people to prove your point that science rules is unreasonable and just as wrong as if someone from a religious denomination did the same. My arguement puts them both on equal footing and I would have to dissagree

The technology of religion would probably be:
Faith, community , philopanthy ( I spelt it wrong I know)
while I don't agree with religion (thats why I'm agnostic) I do respect religion as I respect science and each have provided postives and negatives to the world but neither can be proven which puts us in a state where we'd have to accept and treat everyone's creeds with equal respect. If someone comes out bashing people with religion I find that unnesscary so I will show them their faith is no less flawed. If someone did the same with science I would point out the flaws in religious reasoning.

There is no universally "right" ultimate truth only ultimate truths that are "right" for the particular individual.

Trespass naught your neighbor as you naught trespass yourself.

i never really had a religious upbringing, but my parents did believe in god and that was what seemed normal when i was very young. around the time i realized Santa Claus wasn't real was the time i started to question whether the whole god, jesus, and heaven and hell thing was real or just something created to control people.

i dont consider myself an athiest, but i do not believe in a traditional god, the kind that can control what happens in the world. to me this is a somewhat selfish self-centered belief. it only seems rational to me that the billions of other people in this world all have free will. ive seen or heard of nothing in my life that would make me really see that there is a god up there watching over us(ie. Miracles). I do however believe in some sort of cosmic force behind the bigger picture, the force behind what created the universe, but i think it is something humans should never and can never understand. i know this sounds really geeky, but the closest representation of what i believe would be the force (god) that is suggested in 2001: A Space Odyssey. whenever i think about some sort of messiah coming down and saving us, i cant help but think of all of the times that would have been perfect for this to happen (world war 1, the holocaust, world war two, huge natural disasters...)

maybe at a young age of 20 i just dont have enough life experience to fully understand the universe i live in, but right now this is how i feel and how i think i am going to feel for the rest of my life unless something profound happens during the course of it.

There is no god, and I bite.

yes what you explain is very much like what I see commonly and is probably the thing I most envy... faith. While I worry for how the world will be and the things that happen people with religion have faith on their side. While I do whatever small changes I can to help create the world I'd like this world to be I sometimes am dissappointed with things people consider insignificant but in the end I guess because of my nature to see if the world isn't how I like it its my fault and I need to do more to make it more like what I want I push forward and hope the little things I do add up. I see somebody and I try to smile I get smiles back however awkward it appeared to that person is meaningless because then I hope that they will pass by someone they don't reconize and smile to them. Small things that I just hope have a ripple effect and start changing the things that I cannot change myself.

well put, Abangyarudo. although i cant say that i envy people who have faith, actually i often find myself almost disgusted with people devoting themselves to religious beliefs that have no concrete evidence to support them, beliefs that could have been written by a bunch of people who just wrote down what they thought almost 2,000 years ago but everybody accepted as gospel. i just cant give in to something like that, something that could just as easily be a complete lie as it could be a complete truth, id rather not know what the world is than accept a belief structure that cant be backed up by a single shred of evidence.

o.k. I'll bite... let's see if I can penetrate this schizoprenic gibberish.

This is a non-sequitur. The discussion is about ghosts, not religion.



Yes, I'm wearing a BS filter. I keeps me from believing in the unprovable nonsense you would have me accept without evidence.



Straw-man alert!! ! Science never claims to explain everything.



I give up... that piece of verbal salad is too thick to penetrate. You seem to be resorting to nihlism again.



This statement is internally contradicting.



And yet under your own logic, there's no way to prove that so you're simply assuming you're right without facts or evidence to back up any argument you have made thus far.



More nihilism. Are you trying to say that religious dogma is equally capable of producing the computer you're typing on? If so, what verses give instruction on electrical engineering? :lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao:

I'm not expecting an intelligent response.