Another pointless religious/atheist thread.

[mindphuk]

I think 'neer explained it well enough, no sense in repeating it here.
One thing I will say is that you have an incorrect conception about science. Science is not just the study of things. It is a systematic method of how to study things. This includes being open to examination by anyone, which leads to peer review and no trade secrets.

Even ignoring the mysticism, both alchemy and astrology used cryptic notes and symbols to keep people that 'weren't in the know' ignorant. It was about as closed and secretive as you can get. This is the antithesis of how science is done.

yes, but you blame religion for most fuck ups today and how religion could have influenced a person to do such acts of whatever they may have done, the church does spread religion.

Please tell me where I blame religion for most of anything. I blame religion for a lot, but politics has to be the winner.

so what about stalin? and you are ok with all the lives lost during those tragic events? yes, only in the name of science right? it also shows how science was used to destroy life

Straw man. Just because I benefit from accelerated science because of wars, does not mean I support war. You benefit as much as I do. Wars have always been a driving force for creativity and invention. Gunpowder and ballistics is science as much as nuclear warheads. I have never appealed to science in that way and to insinuate I do is really low.

calling people who believe and solely keep to themselves about their beliefs "religious nut jobs" is belittling my beliefs as well. That is an attempt to try and show you all the hypocrisy of your(not you in general, but if you have said it or thought it) claims about being "religious nut jobs!"

First, point to a post where I have called anyone a nut job. I know you like to lump all atheists together with the same beliefs but as I have pointed out, that is a fallacy.

Second, the religious people that I consider a bit off are not the ones keeping their beliefs to themselves. They are the Westboro Baptists and Cobb County School Board members and others that I believe pose a real threat to other people's liberty.

maybe that is your position on religion, dislike, but others i cannot say the same for. Just as you all associate anyone who believes in God as a "religious nut job" i have made the statement because you are associated with atheists. And what said to be absurd is the fact the you all associate all believers to "nut jobs" and people who "force their beliefs on others!"

Since atheism is not a belief system, it's about what I don't believe. What I believe is often quite different than what other atheists believe. This is not going to be the same with people of the same religion, they are professing to believe certain things and those beliefs must overlap if they are going to consider themselves the same religion.

so questioning science is?

Not questioning science. You can question science all day long. What is belittling is trying to equate it with things it is not like mystical alchemy.

why are you not defending islam when defending muslims? they believe in islam and follow alah, just like radical muslims do. So why persecute me, that i believe in the Christian God and do not force anything on anyone?

How have I persecuted you? I would defend you if your rights were being threatened. My lack of belief in your god does nothing to harm you let alone harass you. As stated before, discussing your beliefs in an open forum subjects them to criticism. I am just as critical of Islam as any other religion. You dislike the criticism, even if it is just. If you don't like that, you are free to not bring up topics or join in discussions about things that you don't want discussed.

I would have to say less then mediocre. I believe the sole purpose of life is to become the best you can be at helping others in any way possible through what you have learned. Of course, learned i mean, what you have learned through your studies in your area of expertise.

I have no problem with that and agree to some extent.

then how is linking us to some past hominid without proper or sufficient evidence not wrong? I mean we do have very close similarities and features, just as alchemy and chemistry have, yet linking us to a hominid is accepted, while linking alchemy to science is not?

Why is it wrong to link us to earlier hominids? Do you disagree we are related? Rejection of common ancestry is denial, not scientific criticism. If you have evidence that counters the claims that we are related to other upright walking, tool using humans and proto-humans, then you are free to publish those critiques in any of the many anthropology journals.

 

[Doj]

I am not personally a fan of religion, but I do think there is something bigger behind all the backwater theology we have today. I do believe we as human beings are special in many ways. I think we have a soul, and a consciousness like no other species on earth, and that our mind alone is very powerfull. We are made up from the same building blocks as any other species, but our mind as humans is different. I feel we are connected to the universe in a way we can't understand yet, and from this feeling many many people get, ancient humans had certain ways of life, which through time got corrupted and became what we know as religion.

 

[olylifter420]

It is a systematic method of how to study things. This includes being open to examination by anyone, which leads to peer review and no trade secrets.

Yes, i understand that, i just left it out... i was on a roll and i sometimes forget to add things to what i write. I am always open to new methods and teachings in my field of expertise, as it is always changing and if caught off guard, you can stay behind. Yes, the examination should be done by someone who is also an expert in your respective field. Done by someone else and they will most likely not know what you are talking about. What i do like about my career is that experience is everything and that cannot be taught.

both alchemy and astrology used cryptic notes and symbols to keep people that 'weren't in the know' ignorant.

yes, just as the free masons' do and so does science. To me, someone that is not in the "know" will have no clue when i mention the SSC or ATC, just as in many fields, there are plenty of terms that regular people will not know, making apart of the people who are not in the "know".

I blame religion for a lot, but politics has to be the winner.

i dont need to show you, you already said it yourself and are politics not influenced by religion?

I have never appealed to science in that way and to insinuate I do is really low.

Im sorry for insinuating anything, i was just pulling a common atheist tactic i see a lot of, no offense. As i have found, you are very different from the common atheist on here and i appreciate that. You have given me chance to discuss with you and for that i am thankful as well MP.

I know you like to lump all atheists together with the same beliefs but as I have pointed out, that is a fallacy.

it aint nice when you get associated with people you do not have common ground with other then just being a believer or non believer. That is just to point out that what other so called atheists' do this all the time and they frequent here quite often and you know that, yet you say nothing about.

keeping their beliefs to themselves.

this i know, but when we (believers) get accused of the same atrocities that others did way before us, it aint nice and gets annoying after awhile.

they are professing to believe certain things and those beliefs must overlap if they are going to consider themselves the same religion.

No, not really because most church people i have met deny evolution and if you believe it you are doing works of the devil. I think that is extremely stupid and something i do not partake with. I am very interested by evolution and adaptions, in no way am i denying evolution. I believe God gave me the right to think for myself and choose what and how to believe it, what to study and what not to study and so on. Just as you do not associate with most other atheists, i do not associate myself with retarded people like those that you dislike.

What is belittling is trying to equate it with things it is not like mystical alchemy.

why is alchemy so mysterious to you? Do not be so close minded and think for a bit. When doing a chemistry experiment where you have to mix two compounds to make another, that in essences is alchemy. As you said, alchemy was the Precursor to chemistry, so a lot of what was done procedure wise is done is now used in modern day chemistry. the mixing of compounds, using a solute and a solvent to make a solution, All that was passed on through alchemy. Before alchemy there was no chemistry if what you say is true and it is, that alchemy was the precursor to chemistry.

How have I persecuted you?

i am sorry, i wrote what is in parenthesis the wrong way. I meant to say that you, as in atheists in general.

You dislike the criticism, even if it is just. If you don't like that, you are free to not bring up topics or join in discussions about things that you don't want discussed.

I am always open to criticism, but when people start posting things to bait you or say things that seem smug, i will not take it. You have been part of some discussions where i was already, and by the time you join, i am already tired of trying to civil with the other atheists in that thread. I have no problem discussing things with you, i enjoy our discussions.

I have no problem with that and agree to some extent.

Why do you agree to some extent? Please share you philosophy of life?

Why is it wrong to link us to earlier hominids?

i am not saying it is wrong, i am just questioning to find reasoning.

Do you disagree we are related?

I find it hard to disagree because the evidence is surmounting and somewhat conclusive. but are all flying things related as well?

If you have evidence that counters the claims that we are related to other upright walking, tool using humans and proto-humans, then you are free to publish those critiques in any of the many anthropology journals.

I do not know why you seem so irritated with this last statement. You know as much as i do that is impossible for me to do. I dont have the background or study to do such a thing and you know that, that is why you seem irritated.

 

[mindphuk]

Yes, i understand that, i just left it out... i was on a roll and i sometimes forget to add things to what i write. I am always open to new methods and teachings in my field of expertise, as it is always changing and if caught off guard, you can stay behind. Yes, the examination should be done by someone who is also an expert in your respective field. Done by someone else and they will most likely not know what you are talking about. What i do like about my career is that experience is everything and that cannot be taught.


yes, just as the free masons' do and so does science. To me, someone that is not in the "know" will have no clue when i mention the SSC or ATC, just as in many fields, there are plenty of terms that regular people will not know, making apart of the people who are not in the "know".

No, that was my whole point. Science is open to anyone. The terms and symbols are not secret. Everything is published and available to anyone. Science is nothing like freemasonry, alchemy or any other secret society.

i dont need to show you, you already said it yourself and are politics not influenced by religion?

You keep saying that I say things, when I ask you where I said it, you tell me you don't need to show me?
I never said that religion is responsible for most of our problems. Even if religion influences politics in some things, that doesn't make your claim about me true.

Im sorry for insinuating anything, i was just pulling a common atheist tactic i see a lot of, no offense. As i have found, you are very different from the common atheist on here and i appreciate that. You have given me chance to discuss with you and for that i am thankful as well MP.


it aint nice when you get associated with people you do not have common ground with other then just being a believer or non believer. That is just to point out that what other so called atheists' do this all the time and they frequent here quite often and you know that, yet you say nothing about.

First off, thank you. I am able to keep an even tone when the other parties are likewise respectful. However, I do tend to get irritated at times and let it show when it clearly is detrimental to my argument.


You are shifting terms again. Atheists have a common ground in that they don't believe in a god. However, that common ground is no different than the common ground I share with other people that don't play chess, or play the piano or collect stamps. Now if chess players started behaving badly and demanding that checkers players be killed (both regular and Chinese variety), then I think the non-chess players would feel somewhat united.

this i know, but when we (believers) get accused of the same atrocities that others did way before us, it aint nice and gets annoying after awhile.

You are shifting the argument again. No believer is blamed for atrocities of the past. Religion is. There is a big difference between blaming religion for problems and blaming the religious. The thing is that it is religious believers that fall victim to the negatives of religion. When people believe they have god on their side, it can be difficult to stop them from doing bad things.

No, not really because most church people i have met deny evolution and if you believe it you are doing works of the devil. I think that is extremely stupid and something i do not partake with. I am very interested by evolution and adaptions, in no way am i denying evolution. I believe God gave me the right to think for myself and choose what and how to believe it, what to study and what not to study and so on. Just as you do not associate with most other atheists, i do not associate myself with retarded people like those that you dislike.

You picked out a single thing that you don't have in common with others of your religion and therefore you don't share other views? You all share a view that Jesus is lord and our salvation, that is a common positive belief among all Chrisitans, amiright?
There is not a single positive belief that all atheists share. In fact there's not a single belief that all theists share except one and that is the belief that god exists, yet that is exactly one more than the zero beliefs that all atheists have.

why is alchemy so mysterious to you? Do not be so close minded and think for a bit. When doing a chemistry experiment where you have to mix two compounds to make another, that in essences is alchemy. As you said, alchemy was the Precursor to chemistry, so a lot of what was done procedure wise is done is now used in modern day chemistry. the mixing of compounds, using a solute and a solvent to make a solution, All that was passed on through alchemy. Before alchemy there was no chemistry if what you say is true and it is, that alchemy was the precursor to chemistry.

That is not the essence of alchemy. Learn the history of chemistry and you will read about people like Robert Boyle that pleaded to others that chemistry stand above alchemy as a separate and scientific discipline. He was a student of Francis Bacon, the father of the scientific method. How can you not see the similarities between alchemy-chemistry and astrology-astronomy?

i am sorry, i wrote what is in parenthesis the wrong way. I meant to say that you, as in atheists in general.

Yet my question still stands as in the royal we. How has any atheist persecuted you? Persecution is a strong word. I find it difficult to imagine how someone with no power over you has been able to persecute you or any other religionist.

I am always open to criticism, but when people start posting things to bait you or say things that seem smug, i will not take it. You have been part of some discussions where i was already, and by the time you join, i am already tired of trying to civil with the other atheists in that thread. I have no problem discussing things with you, i enjoy our discussions.

Yet I stopped responding to you because your postings became hate-filled rants against atheists. To me they seemed more like baiting than anything I have seen from other atheists including some of the more aggressive ones.

Why do you agree to some extent? Please share you philosophy of life?

I might try later. That's a deep question that I'm not sure I have answers for.

i am not saying it is wrong, i am just questioning to find reasoning.

The reasons are out there in published works and natural history museums. Question all you want, I love trying to answer questions about evolution. The problem that I typically run into is denial of the evidence without offering rational reasons.

I find it hard to disagree because the evidence is surmounting and somewhat conclusive. but are all flying things related as well?

Well, all life is related but not all flying things are closely related. We can show how flight has evolved independently many times by very different methods.

I do not know why you seem so irritated with this last statement. You know as much as i do that is impossible for me to do. I dont have the background or study to do such a thing and you know that, that is why you seem irritated.

Not irritated at all. In fact, I posted that to point out that's exactly how science works. You don't need a degree or even have studied anything professionally, just learn about it and understand it enough to refute it with evidence or even some new creative insight that turns into an initial hypothesis. The problem is that most people that deny common ancestry don't even understand it well enough to get the basics correct yet they still feel confident enough to think all of the people that dedicate their lives to this research are full of shit. And the these people like to call scientists arrogant...
These are not people keeping their beliefs to themselves, something that we agreed is necessary if one is to avoid ridicule.

 

[cannabineer]

There is not a single positive belief that all atheists share.

... except perhaps for the relief/awe/responsibility that comes from knowing (in the sense of sincerely believing) that the buck stops here.
cheers 'neer

 

[Hepheastus420]

Hey who else is smoking some bowls and watching the debates go on and on?

 

[Hepheastus420]

alright I just had an idea, so here it goes...
Religious books are just books right? So then we have religious people saying this is right no doubt about it, then we have the atheists saying I just don't believe it, and then we have the skeptics that say bullshit you bunch of dumbasses. Before I go on I would like to point something out.
When I was in school we would have a shitload of textbooks about science, some of them were old editions. Anyways my biology/chemistry/physics teacher all taught from these books and would sometimes point out that some of the information in these older edition books have been proven wrong so they would teach you what was right. But think about it... These books were old editions so the past students had to learn that false crap but since the book never said was false they took it as fact since the book gave many of these so called "facts".
Now back to my initial point... Just like the science books the religious books are just books that don't say they are false but say they are true. (iforgot my point so im gonna come up with some bullshit point for now until my real point comes back to me, ha) Maybe they are wrong also but you can't say that science doesn't draw people astray from the truth just like religion supposedly does.

Alright I think I was supposed to post this in the other thread that talks about evolution taught in schools. And my point was that atheists shouldn't complain about religion being an elective when it was mandatory that other students had to learn that false crap some of the old edition science books taught.

 

[olylifter420]

The terms and symbols are not secret.

Agreed

you tell me you don't need to show me?

"I blame religion for a lot, but politics has to be the winner." I understood that as in you do blame religion for a lot of stuff going on today. Sorry if i misunderstood.

I am able to keep an even tone when the other parties are likewise respectful.

i wish all atheists were like that. I just get really heated cause of other people on here. As i have found, the multiple chances you have given me to discuss with you are greatly appreciated. I will do my best to continue contributing good stuff while discussing with you.

Atheists have a common ground in that they don't believe in a god.

well why do so many hate or dislike religion and the people who follow it?

then I think the non-chess players would feel somewhat united.

Yes, this is how we(believers) feel on here when we start getting associated with those people who kill and use the word of God for malice.

No believer is blamed for atrocities of the past.

Many on here have associated us with those type of people and then we start to defend ourselves after having our beliefs belittled and they begin to say that that is what our religion has taught us.

Religion is.

Yes, but each religion has followers and as such, many of us who never even thought about doing whatever it is they associate us with are automatically targeted for attacks and constant baiting by others who dislike or hate our beliefs.

When people believe they have god on their side, it can be difficult to stop them from doing bad things.

I have never done bad things because God is on my side. I do bad things because that is the choice i made at that time. The question is, what do you consider to be bad? Smoking marijuana? Stealing? Thinking about another woman while having sex with your wife? Cursing at someone who cut you off in traffic? Betting on games? The thing is, "bad" is a big three letter word that can have a different meaning for everyone. Yes, there are some well known bad things, killing or cheating, but what about minor things? Some atheists may consider missionaries who go and help out needy people in 3rd world countries who go to missions where they have been established and accepted long ago, as a bad and horrendous thing they are doing. While the rest of the world shows compassion and appreciation for what they do. These people believe in what they do because that is what God has taught them to do, place others ahead of yourself for the better of mankind. That what you say is associated with radical extremists or far far left or right right individuals who believe they can do whatever it is using God's name in vain.

You picked out a single thing that you don't have in common with others of your religion and therefore you don't share other views? You all share a view that Jesus is lord and our salvation, that is a common positive belief among all Chrisitans, amiright?

I do share views with other believers in that we believe Jesus Christ died for our sins and is and will be our savior come judgement day. For other extremists, that is about as far as it goes. yes, you are right about the second part of your statement. What is your point about that?

yet that is exactly one more than the zero beliefs that all atheists have.

are beliefs not philosophies? Im pretty sure they are, so why do you say atheists have zero beliefs? The belief if you are an idealist, realist or pragmatist are shared by billions right?

That is not the essence of alchemy.

is alchemy not the mixing of various elements and designing experiments in order to make a precious metal, most commonly would be gold? I understand the "mystical" side to. Ok, not essences, but their common ground if you may, is that not a common trait between them?

. How can you not see the similarities between alchemy-chemistry and astrology-astronomy?

there is common ground. Many of the tools and equipment used in alchemy are now used in chemistry and the same can be said for astrology and astronomy. I dont know if you are being sarcastic there. The only difference as you say is that while alchemy was used for the "supernatural" and "mystical", chemistry is about the scientific method and using experimentation to discover truth or fact.

Persecution is a strong word.

Im sorry for using persecution, i was a bit too high and thought it would have conviction.

Yet I stopped responding to you because your postings became hate-filled rants against atheists.

the atheists i would be discussing with prior to you just did their best to irritate believers, im not going to sit there and just watch it happen without me saying anything nice. as i have said, i see you consideration in you giving me several chances to discuss properly with you and for that, again i am thankful.

To me they seemed more like baiting than anything I have seen from other atheists including some of the more aggressive ones.

does that mean im intelligent?

I might try later. That's a deep question that I'm not sure I have answers for.

I mean you dont have to write an essay, just a few key pointers you might want to share with a young buck, well (25).

The reasons are out there in published works and natural history museums.

but when you dont know where to look first, isnt good to ask someone who knows already?

Question all you want, I love trying to answer questions about evolution.

are you an anthropologist? Not being mean or anything, just curious cause you seem to know a lot about the topic.

The problem that I typically run into is denial of the evidence without offering rational reasons.

there is no denial on my part, im not naive enough to not consider substantial evidence. Although i am Christian, i accept evolution and appreciate its study. I will do some more readings on it and work up some questions for later discussion.

We can show how flight has evolved independently many times by very different methods.

what methods do you speak of? what books or readings do recommend?

ok, i got an evolution question.

what evidence is there about our vestigial structures such as the thymus or appendix? Has there been actual organ discovery? I would think maybe only in subjects that were heavily conserved in ice. I see no use in them, just our thymus in our early years of life to develop our immune system, but after a certain year, it goes dormant or is of no use anymore. Our appendix only serves to harm us or kill us when it get infected. Do you believe that in our future species these structures will cease to develop?

 

[olylifter420]

Alright I think I was supposed to post this in the other thread that talks about evolution taught in schools. And my point was that atheists shouldn't complain about religion being an elective when it was mandatory that other students had to learn that false crap some of the old edition science books taught.

you dont have to go back so far, i have several books for 2004-05 for kinesiology that have had several methods disproven or unaccepted in more recent textbooks, you do make an excellent point though.

 

[Phillip J Fry]

The universe came from somewhere.

Ya the big bang

 

[Hepheastus420]

Ya the big bang

Can you prove it to us?

 

[cannabineer]

Originally Posted by Hepheastus420
alright I just had an idea, so here it goes...
Religious books are just books right? So then we have religious people saying this is right no doubt about it, then we have the atheists saying I just don't believe it, and then we have the skeptics that say bullshit you bunch of dumbasses. Before I go on I would like to point something out.
When I was in school we would have a shitload of textbooks about science, some of them were old editions. Anyways my biology/chemistry/physics teacher all taught from these books and would sometimes point out that some of the information in these older edition books have been proven wrong so they would teach you what was right. But think about it... These books were old editions so the past students had to learn that false crap but since the book never said was false they took it as fact since the book gave many of these so called "facts".
Now back to my initial point... Just like the science books the religious books are just books that don't say they are false but say they are true. (iforgot my point so im gonna come up with some bullshit point for now until my real point comes back to me, ha) Maybe they are wrong also but you can't say that science doesn't draw people astray from the truth just like religion supposedly does.

Alright I think I was supposed to post this in the other thread that talks about evolution taught in schools. And my point was that atheists shouldn't complain about religion being an elective when it was mandatory that other students had to learn that false crap some of the old edition science books taught.

There imo is a key structural difference between science and any revealed doctrine. When is the last time someone in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic traditions came forth with a new, revised edition? There is no mechanism for amending or correcting stuff that arguably hasn't stood the test of time. There cannot be such a mechanism - without undercutting a core premise, i.e. everything in [this book, directly revealed/dictated/authored by the Kahuna or a key minion], is true. The only way to modify the doctrine is to find an additional book in the manner of the apostles, Mohammed and Joseph Smith.
cheers 'neer

 

[Hepheastus420]

There imo is a key structural difference between science and any revealed doctrine. When is the last time someone in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic traditions came forth with a new, revised edition? There is no mechanism for amending or correcting stuff that arguably hasn't stood the test of time. There cannot be such a mechanism - without undercutting a core premise, i.e. everything in [this book, directly revealed/dictated/authored by the Kahuna or a key minion], is true. The only way to modify the doctrine is to find an additional book in the manner of the apostles, Mohammed and Joseph Smith.
cheers 'neer

They change the interpretations all the time, that's where all these new books come from. So both science and religious books are always changing.

 

[cannabineer]

They change the interpretations all the time, that's where all these new books come from. So both science and religious books are always changing.

I don't see religious books changing. When was there a new edition (not merely translation) of Torah, the New Testament, al-Qur'an?
cheers 'neer

 

[Luger187]

They change the interpretations all the time, that's where all these new books come from. So both science and religious books are always changing.

even so, these changes are based on personal beliefs and whatever the guy writing it wants. science revises itself through study, experiment, and peer review.

 

[olylifter420]

argument of repetition.

even so, these changes are based on personal beliefs and whatever the guy writing it wants. science revises itself through study, experiment, and peer review.

 

[cannabineer]

I remain intrigued by the concept of change in religious books.
cheers 'neer

 

[olylifter420]

as am i with science books in my field. they always keep me up to date

I remain intrigued by the concept of change in religious books.
cheers 'neer

 

[Harrekin]

Just gonna post this again...seems the religious ignored it: http://www.sciy.org/2010/05/21/first-synthetic-life-created/

Synthetic life...hmmm...God is us now?

 

[Hepheastus420]

Just gonna post this again...seems the religious ignored it: http://www.sciy.org/2010/05/21/first-synthetic-life-created/

Synthetic life...hmmm...God is us now?

Nah we saw it... It could be beneficial but I have my doubts about it being beneficial. No we didn't create everything so we are not god.