Page 2 of 4
Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 8:33 am
by pk-
Scientific 'proof' requires faith though, doesn't it. The only way you can prove something is by testing it x number of times and observing the same thing each time. You've got to eventually just trust that it's always going to happen.
eg I could drop a tennis ball from a height of 3 feet 1,000 times, and more than likely it would fall out of my hand and bounce off the floor each time. But that doesn't prove that the 1001st time I let go of the ball it won't fly straight up through my roof and then do laps of my house. Eventually I have to just believe that it won't
Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 8:37 am
by jsilver
DUBSTEP EIZ MI REELIGION
i'm 100% sure it kicks arse
Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 8:46 am
by Jah Billah
Ov3rdos3 wrote:Diablo wrote:I'm 100% certain we're all eventually gonna die !
That and paying taxes I guess is excluded from the argument...
Funny how taxes got involved with strongest natural/supernatural force in universe-Death; just to gain some authority. Death to taxes
Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 8:48 am
by Jah Billah
pk- wrote:Scientific 'proof' requires faith though, doesn't it. The only way you can prove something is by testing it x number of times and observing the same thing each time. You've got to eventually just trust that it's always going to happen.
It goes in deeper. Each experiment is involuntarily effected by expectations of experimenter. Each scientific proof is a proof of one's scientists beliefs. Science is the biggest religion around.
Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 8:59 am
by the acid never lies
pk- wrote:Scientific 'proof' requires faith though, doesn't it. The only way you can prove something is by testing it x number of times and observing the same thing each time. You've got to eventually just trust that it's always going to happen.
eg I could drop a tennis ball from a height of 3 feet 1,000 times, and more than likely it would fall out of my hand and bounce off the floor each time. But that doesn't prove that the 1001st time I let go of the ball it won't fly straight up through my roof and then do laps of my house. Eventually I have to just believe that it won't
no doubt i see what you're saying about it still being a matter of faith, but it seems to me that we form most of our beliefs calculating probability - like you say, i
believe the sun will rise tomorrow and I say that with conviction. 6 billion people could tell me actually tomorrow it won't rise and i still wouldn't change my mind. To believe that the sun won't rise tomorrow despite what my rational mind tells me would in my eyes seem a more appropriate use of faith. I suppose we could go round in circles about the fact that i am still putting faith in myself though
Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 9:51 am
by the acid never lies
Neurotik wrote:Atheism and religious fundamentalism both frequently come to ignorance, just on opposite sides of the scale imo.
this sums up my thoughts on the matter also
Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 11:12 am
by alien pimp
before we can have a dialogue, we have to make sure we all speak the same language, so what's the definition of atheism everyone agrees with here?
much love to everyone that believes believing is stupid, and to everyone that believes not believing is as stupid as believing. if anyone feels excluded, raise your hand
Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 11:22 am
by magma
I agree with this, as did the bloke who first coined the word agnostic (William Paley). He said Atheist had faith there was NO God an Agnostic was not sure either way. A scientist can't currently be sure either way, therefore a scientist should be an agnostic.
That doesn't mean a scientist should show more respect for people with mental, unfounded beliefs... it just means they should be frank about their own. And also about the difference between beliefs and knowledge.
Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 11:25 am
by missedthebus
Ov3rdos3 wrote:blood wrote:i think atheism just means you don't believe in god, i don't know where you got the "100% certainty" thing from
Nah. An Athiest is 100% certain of there being no God. If you are less than 100% certain, you are then "Agnostic".
Athiesm and Christianity are the two polar extremes of belief. Anything inbetween in Agnosticism.
You cannot polarise atheism and Christianity.
The opposites are atheism Vs a belief in religion, its theology, and thus its God(s).
Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 11:27 am
by magma
missedthebus wrote:You cannot polarise atheism and Christianity.
The opposites are atheism Vs a belief in religion, its theology, and thus its God(s).
Indeed... it's funny how this argument always gets bogged down in Christianity. Are people too afraid of being so offensive about Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs etc?
Re: Athiests as dumb as Evangelical Christians.
Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 11:27 am
by capo ultra
Ov3rdos3 wrote:Consider this:
Athiests and Fundamental Christians have more in common than you think, and it is my belief, they are equally as deluded and stupid.
Now hear me out...
What defines a Christian? ABSOLUTE faith in God. As in, 100% certainty that God exists.
What defines an Athiest? ASBOLUTE faith in God NOT existing. 100% certaintly of this.
Why are each as retarded as the other? Because both have 100% faith and certainty in a universe where nothing is certain.
Civilized humans have been around for only a few thousand years, and for anyone to assume that they have a 100% certainty of ANYTHING this universe has to offer, is not only incredibly arrogant, it is also incredibly stupid. It is safe to say that we know pretty much NOTHING about the universe in which we live and yet, we have people who claim to have a 100% certainty of things unknown to anyone. Incredible. Well done. You are a retard.
The smartest you will EVER be, is to accept that fact that you know nothing, and that nothing is 100% certain.
If you want to be truely lazy in your beliefs (like I do), Agnosticism is the way to go.
Lemsip Max and Pepsi Pie.
I fall into the 'don't give a shit' category
Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 11:53 am
by alien pimp
btw, an agnostic is what? a person that believes it doesn't know shit?
then we get to what's god and the pop quiz is done, add the points and see if overdose outsmarted you and if he's right to call you stupid
then we see who's got it longer and we're done here
Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 12:20 pm
by magma
alien pimp wrote:btw, an agnostic is what? a person that believes it doesn't know shit?
No, it's a person that is
aware of the fact he doesn't have enough evidence available to know something.
Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 12:29 pm
by uncle bill
Magma wrote:missedthebus wrote:You cannot polarise atheism and Christianity.
The opposites are atheism Vs a belief in religion, its theology, and thus its God(s).
Indeed... it's funny how this argument always gets bogged down in Christianity. Are people too afraid of being so offensive about Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs etc?
It's because they think they understand Christianity better than other religions although usually they don't know much about it at all.
I don't see the problem with saying you "believe" something to be true or false. There are lots of things I believe to be true that I can't prove - my own existence and the evidence of my senses for example. It doesn't matter to me if people say they believe or disbelieve in God as long as they don't go around persecuting those who don't agree.
There's no such thing as absolute certainty in any field of knowledge outside mathematics and logic. I can almost guarantee that the Archbishop of Canterbury would agree with that statement. Possibly even The Pope.
Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 12:37 pm
by alfie
i tend to call myself atheist but i'm not really happy with it as a 'label'
i don't believe in any of the tenets of the world religions, but i don't discount that there's a higher power at work somewhere in the universe.
i suppose agnostic would be the most accurate phrase, but to me that suggests i might be converted to religion by some persuasive god-botherer, which wouldn't happen
Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 1:04 pm
by karmacazee
.....yeah, but Richard Dawkins is a creepy annoyig twat isn't he?
Gashface.
I just don't like preachy people, especially when they're a man with a woman's voice who looks disturbingly similar to Emma Watson.
Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 1:13 pm
by tr0tsky
Richard Dawkins is NOT an annoying twat.
Read his books. They're fucking great.
tr0tsky: atheist by day, rastaman by night.
Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 1:15 pm
by karmacazee
tr0tsky wrote:Richard Dawkins is NOT an annoying twat.
Read his books. They're fucking great.
tr0tsky: atheist by day, rastaman by night.
I have. His books are great. He's still a twat though.
Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 1:18 pm
by karmacazee
Is there a definition for somebody who's just plain given up/doesn't care whether there is/isn't a god?
After much soul searching and reading many religious and atheist texts, I came to the conclusion that it's mostly irrelevent distracting bullcrap.
I'm a DILLIGAFist.