User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 6/29/2017 1:16:19 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Faith is a strong belief in something. I strongly believe God created the universe, despite being a HUGE space/physics junky. And yes, the singularity (again, something we have zero evidence of, which breaks the laws of physics as we know them....hurr durr) is an infinitely dense/hot point. Something that science says can't exist..... A lot like God? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You don't choose whether you believe something or not. You're either convinced of it/believe it has good evidence/reasons or you're not. Also, the Singularity isn't nothing. And yes, the singularity (again, something we have zero evidence of, which breaks the laws of physics as we know them....hurr durr) is an infinitely dense/hot point. Something that science says can't exist..... A lot like God? I can strongly believe in something that has good objective evidence for it. Does that mean I have faith? I believe that the coffee mug (that I'm drinking out of) on my desk is real (even though I acknowledge it could just be an illusion), am I using the same type of faith that a religious person uses? Scientific laws are just descriptive, they're not proscriptive. All of our laws come from the Big Bang. A scientific law is not like what a layman thinks of when they think of "law", same with "theory". |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2017 1:20:21 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I believe for Christians faith is "evidence for things not seen", in which many then claim they then KNOW. I can strongly believe in something that has good objective evidence for it. Does that mean I have faith? I believe that the coffee mug (that I'm drinking out of) on my desk is real (even though I acknowledge it could just be an illusion), am I using the same type of faith that a religious person uses? Scientific laws are just descriptive, they're not proscriptive. All of our laws come from the Big Bang. A scientific law is not like what a layman thinks of when they think of "law", same with "theory". Also I'm not talking about scientific law, you must be conflating two posts. And you have just about as much evidence of our physics coming from the big bang as I do that a sky dad exists....which is..... ZERO! "Physics" is an inherently flawed system anyway. "The laws of physics are undeniable and cannot be broken!!!"*** ** Except for black holes, quantum non-locality, the singularity and any other phenomenon we can't figure out. Our laws of physics don't apply to those. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2017 1:22:27 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
But it isn't separate from the question "Is God Real?" Which is the question at the most simple conception possible, and the more important question. Obviously you can frame the question and different ways. I don't know is a perfectly suitable response, especially to questions which no certainty can be presently obtained. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It's a separate question from, "Do you believe in a God/Gods or not?". The only answer to that question is "I do", "I don't". "I don't know" doesn't really answer the question. Does the person not know whether they believe or not? If they're really saying "I don't have proof there is or isn't a God/Gods", well duh, still doesn't answer the question. The question is "Do you believe or not?" Do you believe in God/that God is real? What certainty are you claiming? How do you know you're right? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2017 1:24:28 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
But science brought us an understanding and came up with ways to prove those laws. Gravity is a remaining huge mystery..........we simply do not know how it works, only that it does. I guess I am having a hard understanding what the basis of your sarcastic answers about whether science has proven certain laws is attempting to accomplish??? Isn't science a method of proving or disproving what we believe to be true in our physical universe? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
That's a law, laws are just descriptive. Maybe light is just an illusion caused by aliens poking your brain in a jar. The law of gravity just says things fall at this rate. The theory of gravity is that mass attracts. Gravity isn't proven. Maybe gravity is just an illusion. Gravity is a remaining huge mystery..........we simply do not know how it works, only that it does. I guess I am having a hard understanding what the basis of your sarcastic answers about whether science has proven certain laws is attempting to accomplish??? Isn't science a method of proving or disproving what we believe to be true in our physical universe? You can measure how fast an apple falls from a tree, repeat for accuracy, and arrive at a law. Then start working on a theory to explain why the apple falls from the tree. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2017 1:28:14 PM EDT
[#5]
Atheists are retarded.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2017 1:28:51 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't claim I know it. I can think logically and realize that there is no proof of God. Which is why it's faith based. Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't claim I know it. I can think logically and realize that there is no proof of God. Which is why it's faith based. There's no proof for pretty much anything (beyond "I think therefor I am" for oneself). Faith is also not a good way to get to truth. Multiple religions believe based on faith and come to contradictory conclusions. What position couldn't one take on faith? Also I'm not talking about scientific law, you must be conflating two posts. And you have just about as much evidence of our physics coming from the big bang as I do that a sky dad exists....which is..... ZERO! "Physics" is an inherently flawed system anyway. "The laws of physics are undeniable and cannot be broken!!!"*** ** Except for black holes, quantum non-locality, the singularity and any other phenomenon we can't figure out. Our laws of physics don't apply to those. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2017 1:29:07 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The question is "Do you believe or not?" There's only two real answers there. There's no claim to knowledge in the question. People believe things and lack belief in things without having proof. The question itself is a false dichotomy. People also can simply say "I don't have enough information to make an informed decision." If I asked you: Which is computationally less expensive for finding cluster centroids given a multi-dimensional set; KNN or CDAVD? (VIM isnt allowed to answer) Do you simply blurt out an answer, because your heart tells you one of them sounds cooler? Or do you say, "I don't know." I don't have empirical evidence for existence or non-existence, so it really is as simple as I don't know. Answering yes implies knowledge, answering no implies knowledge. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2017 1:37:17 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The question itself is a false dichotomy. People also can simply say "I don't have enough information to make an informed decision." Quote HistoryQuoted:
The question itself is a false dichotomy. People also can simply say "I don't have enough information to make an informed decision." You either believe it or you don't. You're dodging the question, you either believe it or you don't. Claims to knowledge are a separate question. If you don't have enough information and if you're thinking critically then you likely don't believe. One shouldn't believe things until there's good objective evidence/information. If I asked you: Which is computationally less expensive for finding cluster centroids given a multi-dimensional set; KNN or CDAVD? (VIM isnt allowed to answer) Do you simply blurt out an answer, because your heart tells you one of them sounds cooler? Or do you say, "I don't know." My question is simply "Do you believe X?", there's no claim to absolute knowledge in the question. One can believe things without having absolute proof of it. One can not believe things because there's no good objective evidence/reason to believe them. I don't have empirical evidence for existence or non-existence, so it really is as simple as I don't know. Answering yes implies knowledge, answering no implies knowledge. -------------- "Is God real?" would be a question, one could say "I dunno." as it entails several unstated questions/assumptions. "Do you believe or not?" is either yes or no. "I dunno" is a dodge. You either believe or you don't. I think people know whether they believe or not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2017 1:38:44 PM EDT
[#9]
You're stupid.
Am not. You are. Blah blah blah. Oh wait, is this Thursday? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2017 1:40:12 PM EDT
[#10]
lol FPNI
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2017 1:45:58 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
E = MC squared is proven. Also, isn't light proven to be the time mechanism for the universe? How about we are a zero net sum energy universe? All energy created at its inception (the Big Bang) remains unchanged all these years? Better to say that anything in science, even that which we consider to be law, can be disproven and either refuted or modified if sufficient factual proof should arise. Pure science is never truly settled, it must always be open to challenge, because it is merely a mechanism to derive truth. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2017 1:46:22 PM EDT
[#12]
The world was created in 144 hours by an old bearded white guy on a cloud throne 6000 years ago. Why can't you dumb-dumbs understand that? Read a book!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2017 1:47:44 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Laws aren't proven. They're basically measurements of observed phenomena. The theories are what go into explaining the mechanisms that drive those phenomena. You can measure how fast an apple falls from a tree, repeat for accuracy, and arrive at a law. Then start working on a theory to explain why the apple falls from the tree. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2017 1:52:08 PM EDT
[#14]
To be fair there's probably a good chance most people here are smarter than 90% of the world population....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2017 1:52:46 PM EDT
[#15]
It's interesting how many self-described smart people really have no clue how science works.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2017 1:53:43 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The world was created in 144 hours by an old bearded white guy on a cloud throne 6000 years ago. Why can't you dumb-dumbs understand that? Read a book! This is the only thing that makes sense. It is all documented in ancient graffiti left by our ancestors. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2017 1:57:47 PM EDT
[#17]
Sounds like a bunch of narcissistic snowflake assholes to me. Pretty sure those come in every guise though.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2017 1:57:48 PM EDT
[#18]
The vast majority of the non god believing people are normal, alright people who just want to be left alone. You would not even know if you didn't just ask them. Then you have the Dbag Atheists like those in the OP.
For awhile they were one of the worst cancers spreading around the web communities. One would move in and try to recruit more to their flock by shit stirring. It was like a cult, a big circle jerking hate group, filled with a bunch of want to be intellectuals. A bunch of people who wanted to be seen a smart without actually doing the hard work to fill and train their minds. Their research was mainly talking points, and their study books were their scriptures, like the God Delusion book mentioned in the OP. The hardcore Dbags have a deep mental need to be thought of as better. In their minds, the only thing holding their greatness back is the evil, poison of believe culture in this rotten world. They believe all their troubles in life are rooted in the fact that there is religion. They believe if religion never existed, the world would be a utopia where people would live forever, flying among the stars, pleasuring an fox human with their enhanced slug hammer genitals. As an example, there was a news story a few years ago about how they found some long lost writing of some thinker. They were preserved because the church, thinking they were just worthless scribbles, recycled the paper for their own use. If you looked at the comments section, you would have thought the church had purposely tried to destroy the cure for cancer. No reason, just hate in most of the comments. ARFCom 2012, I was about ready to stop lurking this site because of this plague. It was really bad, and everyday seemed to bring new shit threads further dividing the people. It took the tragedy in December to unit everyone again to fight a common enemy. They have died down a lot since than. I think the Neckbread thread helped to show the world how ugly the Dbag Atheists are. That's not to say they are gone, as they still pop up in threads here and there to shit all over them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2017 1:58:41 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
His statement was clumsy, I agree. Better to say that anything in science, even that which we consider to be law, can be disproven and either refuted or modified if sufficient factual proof should arise. Pure science is never truly settled, it must always be open to challenge, because it is merely a mechanism to derive truth. Scientific laws aren't proven, it's just descriptive. Maybe gravity/light/etc. is just an illusion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2017 1:59:06 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't claim I know it. I can think logically and realize that there is no proof of God. Which is why it's faith based. Also I'm not talking about scientific law, you must be conflating two posts. And you have just about as much evidence of our physics coming from the big bang as I do that a sky dad exists....which is..... ZERO! Scientists can use mathematics to demonstrate how various theories of the universe's creation is supportable. And they can point to all sorts of observed evidence that fit parts of their mathematical models. There exists no such mathematical model that points to God, there are no proposed experiments that point to God. That's how science works...if you toss a theory out there, you have to at least show how it could be tested if such testing isn't technologically feasible today. And you have to have the math that points to that conclusion...the tests only bear out the math. If some scientist comes along for a mathematical pathway to a omniscient creator and a test for it, I'm all ears. Until then God and science do not belong together. You shouldn't need science or the scientific method to support your belief in god, as religion is 100% a faith based exercise. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2017 1:59:54 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How was my statement clumsy? Nothing in science is proven. Scientific laws aren't proven, it's just descriptive. Maybe gravity/light/etc. is just an illusion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2017 2:00:03 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The vast majority of the non god believing people are normal, alright people who just want to be left alone. You would not even know if you didn't just ask them. Then you have the Dbag Atheists like those in the OP. For awhile they were one of the worst cancers spreading around the web communities. One would move in and try to recruit more to their flock by shit stirring. It was like a cult, a big circle jerking hate group, filled with a bunch of want to be intellectuals. A bunch of people who wanted to be seen a smart without actually doing the hard work to fill and train their minds. Their research was mainly talking points, and their study books were their scriptures, like the God Delusion book mentioned in the OP. The hardcore Dbags have a deep mental need to be thought of as better. In their minds, the only thing holding their greatness back is the evil, poison of believe culture in this rotten world. They believe all their troubles in life are rooted in the fact that there is religion. They believe if religion never existed, the world would be a utopia where people would live forever, flying among the stars, pleasuring an fox human with their enhanced slug hammer genitals. As an example, there was a news story a few years ago about how they found some long lost writing of some thinker. They were preserved because the church, thinking they were just worthless scribbles, recycled the paper for their own use. If you looked at the comments section, you would have thought the church had purposely tried to destroy the cure for cancer. No reason, just hate in most of the comments. ARFCom 2012, I was about ready to stop lurking this site because of this plague. It was really bad, and everyday seemed to bring new shit threads further dividing the people. It took the tragedy in December to unit everyone again to fight a common enemy. They have died down a lot since than. I think the Neckbread thread helped to show the world how ugly the Dbag Atheists are. That's not to say they are gone, as they still pop up in threads here and there to shit all over them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2017 2:01:59 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The vast majority of the non god believing people are normal, alright people who just want to be left alone. You would not even know if you didn't just ask them. Then you have the Dbag Atheists like those in the OP. For awhile they were one of the worst cancers spreading around the web communities. One would move in and try to recruit more to their flock by shit stirring. It was like a cult, a big circle jerking hate group, filled with a bunch of want to be intellectuals. A bunch of people who wanted to be seen a smart without actually doing the hard work to fill and train their minds. Their research was mainly talking points, and their study books were their scriptures, like the God Delusion book mentioned in the OP. The hardcore Dbags have a deep mental need to be thought of as better. In their minds, the only thing holding their greatness back is the evil, poison of believe culture in this rotten world. They believe all their troubles in life are rooted in the fact that there is religion. They believe if religion never existed, the world would be a utopia where people would live forever, flying among the stars, pleasuring an fox human with their enhanced slug hammer genitals. As an example, there was a news story a few years ago about how they found some long lost writing of some thinker. They were preserved because the church, thinking they were just worthless scribbles, recycled the paper for their own use. If you looked at the comments section, you would have thought the church had purposely tried to destroy the cure for cancer. No reason, just hate in most of the comments. ARFCom 2012, I was about ready to stop lurking this site because of this plague. It was really bad, and everyday seemed to bring new shit threads further dividing the people. It took the tragedy in December to unit everyone again to fight a common enemy. They have died down a lot since than. I think the Neckbread thread helped to show the world how ugly the Dbag Atheists are. That's not to say they are gone, as they still pop up in threads here and there to shit all over them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2017 2:04:12 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Evangelical atheism is/may-as-well-be a religion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2017 2:05:38 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The question itself is a false dichotomy. People also can simply say "I don't have enough information to make an informed decision." If I asked you: Which is computationally less expensive for finding cluster centroids given a multi-dimensional set; KNN or CDAVD? (VIM isnt allowed to answer) Do you simply blurt out an answer, because your heart tells you one of them sounds cooler? Or do you say, "I don't know." I don't have empirical evidence for existence or non-existence, so it really is as simple as I don't know. Answering yes implies knowledge, answering no implies knowledge. The first question asks for a qualitative analysis of the merits of X vs Y. The second question simply asks if you believe in the existence of X. If you answer "I don't know if I believe in the existence of X" then you are by default implying you lack a belief in x. That is part and parcel to not knowing if you believe in something. Not knowing if you believe something precludes the possibility that you believe it. If you believed it, you would know it. That isn't to say you can NEVER believe it, it is simply a statement of what belief you currently hold. Your comparison would be more valid if you phrased it as "Do you believe KNN is less computationally expensive for finding cluster centroids given a multi-dimensional set than CDAVD?" No. I don't believe that. I lack a belief in that. I don't have reasonable evidence to give me a belief in that statement. It's still a silly comparison as I'm sure there exists objective evidence to answer that question as opposed to the question of god or gods, for which no objective evidence exists. But at least it's a logically equivalent comparison phrased that way. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2017 2:05:56 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The vast majority of the non god believing people are normal, alright people who just want to be left alone. You would not even know if you didn't just ask them. Then you have the Dbag Atheists like those in the OP. For awhile they were one of the worst cancers spreading around the web communities. One would move in and try to recruit more to their flock by shit stirring. It was like a cult, a big circle jerking hate group, filled with a bunch of want to be intellectuals. A bunch of people who wanted to be seen a smart without actually doing the hard work to fill and train their minds. Their research was mainly talking points, and their study books were their scriptures, like the God Delusion book mentioned in the OP. The hardcore Dbags have a deep mental need to be thought of as better. In their minds, the only thing holding their greatness back is the evil, poison of believe culture in this rotten world. They believe all their troubles in life are rooted in the fact that there is religion. They believe if religion never existed, the world would be a utopia where people would live forever, flying among the stars, pleasuring an fox human with their enhanced slug hammer genitals. As an example, there was a news story a few years ago about how they found some long lost writing of some thinker. They were preserved because the church, thinking they were just worthless scribbles, recycled the paper for their own use. If you looked at the comments section, you would have thought the church had purposely tried to destroy the cure for cancer. No reason, just hate in most of the comments. ARFCom 2012, I was about ready to stop lurking this site because of this plague. It was really bad, and everyday seemed to bring new shit threads further dividing the people. It took the tragedy in December to unit everyone again to fight a common enemy. They have died down a lot since than. I think the Neckbread thread helped to show the world how ugly the Dbag Atheists are. That's not to say they are gone, as they still pop up in threads here and there to shit all over them. Most people whom identify as Atheists are (Agnostic-)Atheists, they acknowledge that they don't know. Most religious people don't acknowledge this, they claim to know. Funny they call Atheists arrogant. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2017 2:06:19 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Exactly. The atheists who don't believe in God and just go on about their business and live their lives? No problem. But the ones who want to 'save' everyone? Absolutely, that's a form of religion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2017 2:11:01 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Exactly. The atheists who don't believe in God and just go on about their business and live their lives? No problem. But the ones who want to 'save' everyone? Absolutely, that's a form of religion. People who claim to know (of which religious fundamentalists are very much a group of), are not generally fine with "just letting other's live their lives". Beliefs matter. Beliefs inform actions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2017 2:20:22 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You're comparing a "which is better, X or Y" question to a binary "Do you believe in X" question. These are different kinds of questions. The first question asks for a qualitative analysis of the merits of X vs Y. The second question simply asks if you believe in the existence of X. If you answer "I don't know if I believe in the existence of X" then you are by default implying you lack a belief in x. That is part and parcel to not knowing if you believe in something. Not knowing if you believe something precludes the possibility that you believe it. If you believed it, you would know it. That isn't to say you can NEVER believe it, it is simply a statement of what belief you currently hold. Your comparison would be more valid if you phrased it as "Do you believe KNN is less computationally expensive for finding cluster centroids given a multi-dimensional set than CDAVD?" No. I don't believe that. I lack a belief in that. I don't have reasonable evidence to give me a belief in that statement. It's still a silly comparison as I'm sure there exists objective evidence to answer that question as opposed to the question of god or gods, for which no objective evidence exists. But at least it's a logically equivalent comparison phrased that way. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The question itself is a false dichotomy. People also can simply say "I don't have enough information to make an informed decision." If I asked you: Which is computationally less expensive for finding cluster centroids given a multi-dimensional set; KNN or CDAVD? (VIM isnt allowed to answer) Do you simply blurt out an answer, because your heart tells you one of them sounds cooler? Or do you say, "I don't know." I don't have empirical evidence for existence or non-existence, so it really is as simple as I don't know. Answering yes implies knowledge, answering no implies knowledge. The first question asks for a qualitative analysis of the merits of X vs Y. The second question simply asks if you believe in the existence of X. If you answer "I don't know if I believe in the existence of X" then you are by default implying you lack a belief in x. That is part and parcel to not knowing if you believe in something. Not knowing if you believe something precludes the possibility that you believe it. If you believed it, you would know it. That isn't to say you can NEVER believe it, it is simply a statement of what belief you currently hold. Your comparison would be more valid if you phrased it as "Do you believe KNN is less computationally expensive for finding cluster centroids given a multi-dimensional set than CDAVD?" No. I don't believe that. I lack a belief in that. I don't have reasonable evidence to give me a belief in that statement. It's still a silly comparison as I'm sure there exists objective evidence to answer that question as opposed to the question of god or gods, for which no objective evidence exists. But at least it's a logically equivalent comparison phrased that way. This isn't a qualitative question. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2017 2:22:13 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He didn't ask which is better. He asked which is computationally less expensive. This isn't a qualitative question. He's comparing a yes or no question to a which value (of this specific quality) is greater question. Way to miss the entire point. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2017 2:23:57 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't knock on doors. If I can impart some critical thinking skills, then great (I've learned things, too). People who claim to know (of which religious fundamentalists are very much a group of), are not generally fine with "just letting other's live their lives". Beliefs matter. Beliefs inform actions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2017 2:25:22 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I've seen this before. Evangelical atheists who hammer away endlessly at those with faith because they assume that they might vote the "wrong" way or think/do the "wrong" thing. They can use it as an excuse to get in other people's business way too much. Like I was saying, they are trying to 'save' everyone. What a pain in the ass. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2017 2:27:04 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
wow He's comparing a yes or no question to a which value (of this specific quality) is greater question. Way to miss the entire point. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
He didn't ask which is better. He asked which is computationally less expensive. This isn't a qualitative question. He's comparing a yes or no question to a which value (of this specific quality) is greater question. Way to miss the entire point. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2017 2:27:47 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If you don't have enough information and if you're thinking critically then you likely don't believe. One shouldn't believe things until there's good objective evidence/information. If you want to talk about first order metaphysical questions, then the only somewhat objective way to do it is to look at the holistic world view portrayed by various religions/philosophies and decide which one best fits the world we are living in. For many of us, including myself, it makes more sense that something like this is the product of intelligence rather than random chance.  Attached FileThe reason Christianity has been the dominant religion for almost two millennia is that it offers an extremely coherent world-view from a theistic perspective. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2017 2:28:19 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yeah. I wish those assholes would stop starting these threads, too. These evangelical atheist threads are getting super old. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2017 2:31:06 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I have been a member of Mensa since 1985, when I was at 98.5 percentile. In 2005 I retook the test and am at the 99th percentile. I am a Christian. I am willing to scan in proof of my IQ, if the Atheist here are willing to do the same. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2017 2:31:53 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well, many Dogmatic Then venture out to "engage" easy targets of annoying The bigger question is WHY do these Most |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2017 2:32:56 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They're both binary questions. A/B is the same as A > B, T/F? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2017 2:37:01 PM EDT
[#39]
It's a sad irony that humanity has such a profoundly and commonly shared value and belief, which we deny, only to focus on relatively minor structural differences.
tragically what we seem to share, is narcissism |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2017 2:37:26 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And I explained at a fairly simple reading level why the way he phrased it makes no sense in a comparison to a "do you believe" question. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
They're both binary questions. A/B is the same as A > B, T/F? This is the equivalent of juggling around 3 = 2 + 1 and correcting someone to say, no, 3 - 2 = 1. You haven't changed a qualitative question into a quantitative one. It's the same question. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2017 2:41:50 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's only accurate if you adopt the philosophy of logical positivism. While logical positivism is currently popular in mainstream society, it has never been a popular position in philosophy due to the work of Rene Descartes. If "I think, therefore I am" is all we can know, then logical positivism falls in on itself because there's "good objective evidence" on exactly nothing other than "I am." Also, it is boring. It doesn't allow you to explore any of life's more interesting questions. Instead you just sit there like a lump going "there's no proof" while everyone else in the philosophy department says "we know, we know. We wish he'd shut up about it already. He knows we know." If you want to talk about first order metaphysical questions, then the only somewhat objective way to do it is to look at the holistic world view portrayed by various religions/philosophies and decide which one best fits the world we are living in. For many of us, including myself, it makes more sense that something like this is the product of intelligence rather than random chance. https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/61337/Inara-Serra-Promos-mal-and-inara-25451590-600-752-241383.JPG The reason Christianity has been the dominant religion for almost two millennia is that it offers an extremely coherent world-view from a theistic perspective. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If you don't have enough information and if you're thinking critically then you likely don't believe. One shouldn't believe things until there's good objective evidence/information. If you want to talk about first order metaphysical questions, then the only somewhat objective way to do it is to look at the holistic world view portrayed by various religions/philosophies and decide which one best fits the world we are living in. For many of us, including myself, it makes more sense that something like this is the product of intelligence rather than random chance. https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/61337/Inara-Serra-Promos-mal-and-inara-25451590-600-752-241383.JPG The reason Christianity has been the dominant religion for almost two millennia is that it offers an extremely coherent world-view from a theistic perspective. re: "I think therefor I am", the mere fact that one is thinking this means that one is (even if one is just a brain in a vat). re:"For many of us, including myself, it makes more sense that something like this is the product of intelligence rather than random chance." Good thing natural selection isn't random chance. Also what makes sense to oneself doesn't mean that it's true (or even likely to be true). See Monty Hall problem, the Earth being still, etc. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2017 2:46:37 PM EDT
[#42]
Thankfully I have avoided all those major threads, c7aea15. If some on ARF are interested in that stuff, that's fine. The firearms community is pretty big. As long as they are good, honest people they are welcome. Even if they are a thief on the high seas. I have learned to not trust "Would You Hit It Threads" on ARF over the years.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Cool, so we can also agree that threads like this one where OP openly trolls atheists for no reason are also started by Dbags, right? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2017 2:52:23 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I have been a member of Mensa since 1985, when I was at 98.5 percentile. In 2005 I retook the test and am at the 99th percentile. I am a Christian. I am willing to scan in proof of my IQ, if the Atheist here are willing to do the same. why the deal making? My my last real test put me at 153. I don't have proof, I was 14. Maybe my parents do? I don't care enough to dig through their storage locker. To be fair- I was only tested because I'm dyslexic with a sprinkling of ADD. I can't read good and I'm bored now. Beyond that the numbers stupid- I think I'm good at test taking when I'm vested. I believe I'm far lower than that. ppss. I don't consider myself an Atheist. But your demand is weak. Don't make an appeal to authority argument and then not verify your authority, because that'd be like, a religion taken on faith alone. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2017 2:53:35 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Maybe? I don't know the OP. If he is, in his heart, doing this thread for no reason than yes. That would be a shit stirring Dbag move. https://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1955855_Why-do-Atheists-reject-darwinism-in-our-modern-society-.html "But, if you are a real atheist, you would have no morals, right? Morals are based off a religious code (ten commandments) to permit them access to the next spiritual plane. An atheist would have no morals. A true atheist would only focus on the things that made them a stronger being, right?" Fallacies, fallacies everywhere (naturalistic fallacy in that case). |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2017 2:55:35 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
One doesn't need to adopt logical positivism for that, one just needs to be skeptical about believing things. If one doesn't have enough information, why would they believe? Because they really want to? re: "I think therefor I am", the mere fact that one is thinking this means that one is (even if one is just a brain in a vat). re:"For many of us, including myself, it makes more sense that something like this is the product of intelligence rather than random chance." Good thing natural selection isn't random chance.  Attached FileYou can't ask why Bramante and Michelangelo went with an arched ceiling in isolation, you have to look at the work as a whole to understand it. Philosophy and religion are the same way. Christianity paints a very compelling world-view. People believe the parts because they believe the whole. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2017 2:59:52 PM EDT
[#46]
Quoted:
I am truly astonished everyday with how smart every atheist i encounter are. Ive compiled a few examples of these people here to show how smart they are. http://i.imgur.com/BKOt38d.png http://i.imgur.com/bl2psI3.png http://i.imgur.com/Bxlt65l.png http://i.imgur.com/TzkKd90.jpg http://i.imgur.com/DSK2M2t.png https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/304344/t3-4qbh0t-241174.JPG I'm amazed at the humility expressed here. It's astounding, actually. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2017 3:00:26 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So you just don't like the phrasing? Shuffling around the words and ask the exact same question? This is the equivalent of juggling around 3 = 2 + 1 and correcting someone to say, no, 3 - 2 = 1. You haven't changed a qualitative question into a quantitative one. It's the same question. He's asking if X is less than Y. Not if I believe X is less than Y. I'm not equipped to answer the question, therefore I by default don't believe X is less than Y. See the difference? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2017 3:01:01 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Because philosophy is an art. And like any art you have to look at the work as a whole to understand it. For instance, take this masterwork. https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/61337/St-241401.JPG You can't ask why Bramante and Michelangelo went with an arched ceiling in isolation, you have to look at the work as a whole to understand it. Philosophy and religion are the same way. Christianity paints a very compelling world-view. People believe the parts because they believe the whole. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2017 3:02:12 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Because philosophy is an art. And like any art you have to look at the work as a whole to understand it. For instance, take this masterwork. https://www.AR15.Com/media/mediaFiles/61337/St-241401.JPG You can't ask why Bramante and Michelangelo went with an arched ceiling in isolation, you have to look at the work as a whole to understand it. Philosophy and religion are the same way. Christianity paints a very compelling world-view. People believe the parts because they believe the whole. That doesn't make it reasonable or true. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/29/2017 3:04:46 PM EDT
[#50]
Oh and much of it is lack of getting any ass.
Anyone tapping ass on the regular isn't worried about it
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
