Your fav religious /anti religious vids

Zaehet Strife

Zaehet Strife

Well-Known Member
theists will never admit that they do not have knowledge about a deity or metaphysics. where as scientists can admit they do not know. the only basis of argument you can ever get out of a theist is FAITH. which is nothing but a thought/idea you believe because you want to, where there is no basis of knowledge present at all.

 theology induces the dogmatic belief that we have knowledge([FONT=&quot]Information and skills acquired through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject)[/FONT], where in fact we have ignorance(Lack of knowledge or information)
 
Zaehet Strife

Zaehet Strife

Well-Known Member
Beefbisquit said:
No, you said Science tells us what we can KNOW, and I said it doesn't. Then you said it did, then I said it didn't. Then you said you didn't say science was about knowing.

So.... your move?
Click to expand...
know/nō/

Verb:
  1. Be aware of through observation, inquiry, or information.
  2. Have knowledge or information concerning.
tell me how what you said is not stupid.

science tells us what we can know (be aware of through observation, inquiry, or information.)

you said it doesn't... that seems stupid to me.




 theology induces the dogmatic belief that we have knowledge([FONT=&quot]Information and skills acquired through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject)[/FONT], where in fact we have ignorance(Lack of knowledge or information)


changing the subject only admits to me your defeat
 
olylifter420

olylifter420

Well-Known Member
My reasoning has nothing to do with anything you have said. Your reasoning comes to question because of the insane things you have said, like making statements or claims that you are one of the few who can control fear or accept your own ignorance. Please man, you are coming across as if you are challenged mentally.

Arguing as you said you were doing is unproductive so why do you argue? I was simply calling you on your flawed statements that make no sense.

There was no ridicule cause i dont recall using an "lol" or saying something funny...



Zaehet Strife said:
there is no reasoning with someone who thinks without reason. all that you have done is ridicule the statements i make that you do not understand, or better yet, refuse to understand. it is a sign of immaturity, and also the will to be ignorant despite the facts. i am done arguing with you.

watch this video.

[video=youtube;SlaCq3dKvvI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SlaCq3dKvvI&feature=related[/video]
Click to expand...
 
olylifter420

olylifter420

Well-Known Member
Ok, i finally get what you mean when you say abit more clear so you can understand.

You mean to use definitions at the end of words of emphasis so you can get it... Aight



Zaehet Strife said:
know/nō/

Verb:
  1. Be aware of through observation, inquiry, or information.
  2. Have knowledge or information concerning.
tell me how what you said is not stupid.

science tells us what we can know (be aware of through observation, inquiry, or information.)

you said it doesn't... that seems stupid to me.




 theology induces the dogmatic belief that we have knowledge([FONT=&quot]Information and skills acquired through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject)[/FONT], where in fact we have ignorance(Lack of knowledge or information)


changing the subject only admits to me your defeat
Click to expand...
 
Zaehet Strife

Zaehet Strife

Well-Known Member
yet again i state:

theists will never admit that they do not have knowledge about a deity or metaphysics. where as scientists can admit they do not know. the only basis of argument you can ever get out of a theist is FAITH. which is nothing but a thought/idea you believe because you want to, where there is no basis of knowledge present at all.

thats a great video by the way, you should watch it.
 
mindphuk

mindphuk

Well-Known Member
Zaehet Strife said:
know/nō/

Verb:
  1. Be aware of through observation, inquiry, or information.
  2. Have knowledge or information concerning.
tell me how what you said is not stupid.

science tells us what we can know (be aware of through observation, inquiry, or information.)

you said it doesn't... that seems stupid to me.
Click to expand...
Remove the word "can" and maybe it will make more sense. What we can know implies a limit. Science certainly tells us what we believe to be true. It doesn't however tell us the limit to which our knowledge can go. Science is limited by describing only the natural world and things in it. What you seem to be describing is a form of positivism yet our knowledge extends beyond that which is limited by science.
 
Zaehet Strife

Zaehet Strife

Well-Known Member
no use trying to argue with theists, they will never admit they do not know. the only argument against this they can use is faith... which is anything but knowledge.
 
Heisenberg

Heisenberg

Well-Known Member
eye exaggerate said:
...sorry 'bout that. I've seen Heis say many times that majority rules in science. I take that as 97% 'can't be wrong', while the other 3% of speculation 'waits' for a supporting role, as it were. Correct me if I am wrong, no worries there. :)
Click to expand...
Perhaps I should clarify myself. When I acknowledge a scientific consensus, it is not the same thing as saying majority rules. Science is not a democracy, therefore no voting occurs. It's not simply a matter of popularity. Scientific consensus happens when scientists stop arguing. When all ideas about cause and effect are explored, tested, retested and reviewed, certain avenues continue to make sense while others fall aside. The focus of investigation then becomes narrowed to these views not out of peer pressure, not out of lionization, but because it is the responsible and reasonable thing to do. Scientific consensus does suggest a majority, but that is not what we take away from it. We take away the idea that this subject has been studied, criticized and sorted through, and the tide of evidence has delivered us to this particular sandbar of knowledge.
 
Beefbisquit

Beefbisquit

Well-Known Member
Heisenberg said:
Perhaps I should clarify myself. When I acknowledge a scientific consensus, it is not the same thing as saying majority rules. Science is not a democracy, therefore no voting occurs. It's not simply a matter of popularity. Scientific consensus happens when scientists stop arguing. When all ideas about cause and effect are explored, tested, retested and reviewed, certain avenues continue to make sense while others fall aside. The focus of investigation then becomes narrowed to these views not out of peer pressure, not out of lionization, but because it is the responsible and reasonable thing to do. Scientific consensus does suggest a majority, but that is not what we take away from it. We take away the idea that this subject has been studied, criticized and sorted through, and the tide of evidence has delivered us to this particular sandbar of knowledge.
Click to expand...
I would add that even with a scientific majority and not a complete consensus, the kind of majority held by experts in a given field is entirely more credible than if a majority of non-scientists held a contrary belief. That is to say, 75% of the people in the world, a gigantic number, could hold a particular view about something scientific, but if 99% of scientists a relatively small number, contest that belief than the 75% of the people in the worlds belief on the matter is irrelevant, or at least drastically less credible.
 
tyler.durden

tyler.durden

Well-Known Member
eye exaggerate said:
...agreed. I've yet to meet a religious person who's said "oh, science? Yeah, sorry, god said no".
Click to expand...
Really? You are lucky. It seems that you're a sociable guy, so I'm surprised you haven't spoken to any fundies that haven't made that very statement, at least regarding certain facts. I've spoken seriously to at least ten people (some in my own family) in my life regarding established facts like the age of the Earth, the age of our universe, evolution, geology, QT, GR & SR, etc.. They actively denied scientific fact in favor of scriptural dogma, coupled with inane statements like, 'science gets stuff wrong all the time' or 'those are facts from anti-christs with their own agenda'... :roll: When people give this type of answer, I don't ever have that discussion with them again. I mean, what is the point...
 
eye exaggerate

eye exaggerate

Well-Known Member
tyler.durden said:
Really? You are lucky. It seems that you're a sociable guy, so I'm surprised you haven't spoken to any fundies that haven't made that very statement, at least regarding certain facts. I've spoken seriously to at least ten people (some in my own family) in my life regarding established facts like the age of the Earth, the age of our universe, evolution, geology, QT, GR & SR, etc.. They actively denied scientific fact in favor of scriptural dogma, coupled with inane statements like, 'science gets stuff wrong all the time' or 'those are facts from anti-christs with their own agenda'... :roll: When people give this type of answer, I don't ever have that discussion with them again. I mean, what is the point...
Click to expand...
...no-no, I've worked for them. Hooooly, they aren't :)

They were a wall for me to smash my face upon over and over and over... I always hated the fckn little southern giggle some of the women had, you know, as if to say they were more 'badass' then they appeared. Always when no one was looking. Trust me, I understand the frustration.
 
eye exaggerate

eye exaggerate

Well-Known Member
Heisenberg said:
Perhaps I should clarify myself. When I acknowledge a scientific consensus, it is not the same thing as saying majority rules. Science is not a democracy, therefore no voting occurs. It's not simply a matter of popularity. Scientific consensus happens when scientists stop arguing. When all ideas about cause and effect are explored, tested, retested and reviewed, certain avenues continue to make sense while others fall aside. The focus of investigation then becomes narrowed to these views not out of peer pressure, not out of lionization, but because it is the responsible and reasonable thing to do. Scientific consensus does suggest a majority, but that is not what we take away from it. We take away the idea that this subject has been studied, criticized and sorted through, and the tide of evidence has delivered us to this particular sandbar of knowledge.
Click to expand...
Thanks Heis.

The completely arbitrary number of 3% is exactly where this believer lives. I'm comfortable not knowing, or, able to silence the chaos of unknowing - most of the time :) Knowledge is a gift, to be sure, but there's a slight benefit (imo) of being in that 3% - what I'd consider as the very same 3% that is the 'unproven' in science.
 
Zaehet Strife

Zaehet Strife

Well-Known Member
should watch them all... but im sure the theists wont have it, its blasphemy! or, are there theists out there who are willing to have an open mind, eager for new information and "tests" of their faith. do you have the courage?

[video=youtube;YkExxkrMyU4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkExxkrMyU4&feature=relmfu[/video]
 
Luger187

Luger187

Well-Known Member
heres a link to a badass site thats good for learnin stuff. they have many subjects, each with a bunch of videos. if you have kids it would be good for them to watch some

http://www.khanacademy.org/#biology

looks like some informational stuff under the biology section for people that dont know much about it. i havent watched any of them yet

edit: this one about DNA is awesome. it shows how the DNA codes and makes proteins.
[video=youtube;_-vZ_g7K6P0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-vZ_g7K6P0&feature=player_embedded[/video]

heres another about variation in species
[video=youtube;DuArVnT1i-E]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DuArVnT1i-E&feature=player_embedded[/video]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top