Thread: What the-?

Well you do seem a little obsessed but whatever floats your boat. Even think of why it's the most popular religion? I don't deny science, I deny theories.

This seems to be a trend on these boards.

[edit everything]

On second thought, no. As annoying as your issues are, they aren't worth any more of my concern. Its just a shame you happen to be the way you are, and i'll leave it at that.

Besides the Way siesmo does it, complaining about how Christianity is 'attacked' more than other religions is just retarded. 90% of believers here are Christians. Fact. And the 8% that are agnostic, don't provide much discussion, they don't have redicoulous facts or dogma's like Christians have. And the 2% of Muslims or Satanists or whatever that Do show their face around here, get owned as much as the next Christian.

Stop whining.

Your holy book sucks.

-

Oh, and also, since siesmo probably is an inhabitant of America, or another country that is ruled in a FAR to theocratic way, he has any right to voice his opinion and dislike for the wide-spread contagious form of retardation called that religion, and in his case Christianity, is.

Waite for Universal Mind. He never tires.

1. Xianity is the world's most popular religion.
Your source of credibility please.

I'm not denying your claim.

Neuro, I'm not Christian, and atheism isn't science.

When did it become cool to insult Christians by using an "X" instead of the word "Christ?"

Originally Posted by Howie

Waite for Universal Mind. He never tires.

1. Xianity is the world's most popular religion.
Your source of credibility please.

I'm not denying your claim.

Here's a pie chart (can't deny the pie) that was compiled in 2005:

http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html

Keep in mind, however, that MANY religions fall under the generic title "Christianity".

EDIT: Wiki. (Also 2005)

Are you kidding me?
Well it makes obvious sense now.
I really did mean it when I asked about Xianity, not realizing it was Christianity.

I agree SilverZeor

Originally Posted by ethen

Neuro, I'm not Christian, and atheism isn't science.

I keep mistaken you for someone else.

Also, I think Atheism and Science are similar. okay, I did mixed them together a bit to much in my post. I think they have the same origin however: Thought and observation. That is where Atheism comes from in places where it does not (publicly) exist. And it is also the base of science.

Originally Posted by ethen

Neuro, I'm not Christian, and atheism isn't science.

Atheism may not BE science but, as Neuro pointed out, it's much akin to science. A view that's detached from religious dogma promotes analytical thinking and unbiased observation. Religion, on the other hand, is the antithesis of science in many ways, primarily by discouraging realistic, logical pursuits of truth and causation.

Religion bases its teachings on the premise that certain things are explained only by supernatural means and, as such, no further exploration is needed because there's nothing more that can be learned. Atheism - or science, as it were - is built on the foundation that everything can be explained by natural means if only we had the body of knowledge to reach the proper conclusions.

So, science (or as you classify it, atheism) is actually the route to higher learning and progression of technology and many other Human endeavours. In my opinion, science and religion can actually co-exist, if only the religious zealots would admit the limitations of faith with respect to actual knowledge and learning. Faith is a great confidence booster (making an individual better than before) but science is the key to Human greatness.

No you see, science promotes analytical thinking and unbiased observations…when it comes to the physical reality that is. Beyond that, philosophy takes the place of science. But atheism, as it’s commonly understood, seems to be a perversion of science and I’ll explain why.

First and foremost, atheism is seen as being more than a belief system (by way of association). However, it isn’t actually science for the simple fact that it doesn’t adhere to the same rigid standards/processes that are required of something, in order for that something to be considered legitimate science. In short, atheism is a scientifically unsubstantiated offshoot of science that is often misinterpreted as science.

At best, atheism is a philosophy that is based on science. And even still, it has its fair share of problems. Consider the nature of science. Science is intrinsically limited to the physical reality. By nature, it cannot observe, study, or explain anything beyond the physical reality, assuming supernatural existences.

Atheism not only refuses this assumption (which is fine in itself) but it goes as far as to assume otherwise (which is as valid as the contrary assumption). But, the reason atheism does this is because of a lack of empirical (or physical) evidence supporting supernatural existences. As you can see, the reasoning behind this logic is somewhat skewed because atheists are trying to use a strictly physical method of observation to debunk something “outside” of the physical reality, and thus outside of the reach of science (and likely our comprehension all together). Obviously that last part doesn't compliment religion either, but nevertheless, science is non-applicable to anything supernatural and it therefore cannot be used to prove/disprove anything of the sort, either way.

And even still, only a slim fraction of atheists are scientists anyway…and those that are work in specialized fields. No one man, be him atheist or otherwise, could possible test and observe all that would be necessary to justify atheistic beliefs solely using empirical evidence. In fact, even if one person had replicated every single experiment ever done in the field of science, that still wouldn’t be enough to empirically prove the absence of God because 1.) Science is unable to observe or study that which is beyond the physical to begin with and 2.) The absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence…unless you get to the point where you have proven everything (physical) there is to prove.

And even in the event of scenario #2, that still only speaks for the physical reality.

I agree with that, ethen. It seemed at first that science and atheism were being treated here as though they were the same, which is why I said what I did. I only hinted at their not being the same thing in my last post when maybe I should have explicitly stated that.

I do agree with your last post though. Atheism is a belief system. Science is a system of testing beliefs. That's the difference between science and any religion.

Originally Posted by homer2020

Well you do seem a little obsessed but whatever floats your boat. Even think of why it's the most popular religion? I don't deny science, I deny theories.

...You deny THEORIES? So... You don't believe in the theory of gravitation? The Theory of Relativity? Heh, i'll bet you don't know what a scientific theory is. You obviously confuse "Theory" and "Guess". A scientific theory ISN'T just a random jumble of guesswork and no proofs. Here, i found a video that can explain this:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=bV4_lVTVa6k


This is just funny


http://youtube.com/watch?v=bMEkCHU2K...elated&search=

Originally Posted by ethen

No you see, science promotes analytical thinking and unbiased observations…when it comes to the physical reality that is. Beyond that, philosophy takes the place of science. But atheism, as it’s commonly understood, seems to be a perversion of science and I’ll explain why.

First and foremost, atheism is seen as being more than a belief system (by way of association). However, it isn’t actually science for the simple fact that it doesn’t adhere to the same rigid standards/processes that are required of something, in order for that something to be considered legitimate science. In short, atheism is a scientifically unsubstantiated offshoot of science that is often misinterpreted as science.

At best, atheism is a philosophy that is based on science. And even still, it has its fair share of problems. Consider the nature of science. Science is intrinsically limited to the physical reality. By nature, it cannot observe, study, or explain anything beyond the physical reality, assuming supernatural existences.

Atheism not only refuses this assumption (which is fine in itself) but it goes as far as to assume otherwise (which is as valid as the contrary assumption). But, the reason atheism does this is because of a lack of empirical (or physical) evidence supporting supernatural existences. As you can see, the reasoning behind this logic is somewhat skewed because atheists are trying to use a strictly physical method of observation to debunk something “outside” of the physical reality, and thus outside of the reach of science (and likely our comprehension all together). Obviously that last part doesn't compliment religion either, but nevertheless, science is non-applicable to anything supernatural and it therefore cannot be used to prove/disprove anything of the sort, either way.

And even still, only a slim fraction of atheists are scientists anyway…and those that are work in specialized fields. No one man, be him atheist or otherwise, could possible test and observe all that would be necessary to justify atheistic beliefs solely using empirical evidence. In fact, even if one person had replicated every single experiment ever done in the field of science, that still wouldn’t be enough to empirically prove the absence of God because 1.) Science is unable to observe or study that which is beyond the physical to begin with and 2.) The absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence…unless you get to the point where you have proven everything (physical) there is to prove.

And even in the event of scenario #2, that still only speaks for the physical reality.

Let me ask you, are you Atheist, agnostic or religious yourself?

As for your point, I never said Atheism Was Science. I don't see why you even make your sig into a link to that post of yours, there never was disagreement. I still stay with my point that Atheism is a standpoint derived from science. It isn't science. No theory, except for mathematical ones, that says "x=x" is purely scientific. There are only theories. However, I don't see why the atheistic theory would be less 'scientific' than lets say the theory of relativity, or lets say the theory of quantum mechanics. What makes the difference, is idiots believing in it blindly, and not fully understanding it. But some pre-evolution idiots also don't really get it, and ruin the conversation. That does not mean evolution isn't a valid theory.

Basically, the Atheistic theory is build upon science, or at least looked at with a scientific view, one of observation and rationality, unlike religions that are build upon ancient scriptures and people (parents, preachers) sharing their beliefs without testing it.

The only thing I do have to say, and I think this is what you mean all along, is that Atheism CAN be a blind faith, like religions can. Once you stop seeing atheism as a (very likely) theory, and start seeing it as a infallible fact, your beliefs are no longer scientifically valid. As are Christians/Muslims that believe with 100% certainty.

Still. Atheism is a perfectly fine scientific theory. It can be as scientific as the M-theory, or the theory of dark matter and gravitons. However, in reality, often Atheism isn't seen and Implemented by atheists as a theory, but seen and used as a belief system. Still, that doesn't make it scientifically wrong to believe in Atheism, as it isn't (scientifically) wrong to believe (as long as it isn't absolute belief, and I doubt few atheists are absolutists) in gravity, electrons, radiation, Until proven differently.

Originally Posted by Oneironaught

Atheism may not BE science but, as Neuro pointed out, it's much akin to science. A view that's detached from religious dogma promotes analytical thinking and unbiased observation. Religion, on the other hand, is the antithesis of science in many ways, primarily by discouraging realistic, logical pursuits of truth and causation.

Religion bases its teachings on the premise that certain things are explained only by supernatural means and, as such, no further exploration is needed because there's nothing more that can be learned. Atheism - or science, as it were - is built on the foundation that everything can be explained by natural means if only we had the body of knowledge to reach the proper conclusions.

So, science (or as you classify it, atheism) is actually the route to higher learning and progression of technology and many other Human endeavours. In my opinion, science and religion can actually co-exist, if only the religious zealots would admit the limitations of faith with respect to actual knowledge and learning. Faith is a great confidence booster (making an individual better than before) but science is the key to Human greatness.

Religion and science are not mutually exclusive and personally I find your gross generalizations ridiculous. "Religion" is a blanket term and so you can't possibly make claims about its teachings with any validity. As for atheism being akin to science; thats just absurd. Science is about exploring possibilities, whereas atheism is about denying possibilities. To me, atheism is the antithesis of science, not theism.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Religion and science are not mutually exclusive and personally I find your gross generalizations ridiculous. "Religion" is a blanket term and so you can't possibly make claims about its teachings with any validity. As for atheism being akin to science; thats just absurd. Science is about exploring possibilities, whereas atheism is about denying possibilities. To me, atheism is the antithesis of science, not theism.

...Because Atheism is built on logic & proof, as is science. Not blind faith. Therefore it CAN (Sorta) be a religion, and be scientific (But i never classify Atheism as religion).

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

...Because Atheism is built on logic & proof, as is science. Not blind faith. Therefore it CAN (Sorta) be a religion, and be scientific (But i never classify Atheism as religion).

But atheism asserts there is no God. How can one know that there is no God, unless s/he knows all things? What is your proof that God does not exist?

Originally Posted by Neruo

Let me ask you, are you Atheist, agnostic or religious yourself?

Does it matter, or are you just curious?

Originally Posted by Neruo

I still stay with my point that Atheism is a standpoint derived from science.

I agree, but so to is intelligent design by that standard.

Originally Posted by Neruo

However, I don't see why the atheistic theory would be less 'scientific' than lets say the theory of relativity, or lets say the theory of quantum mechanics. What makes the difference, is idiots believing in it blindly, and not fully understanding it. But some pre-evolution idiots also don't really get it, and ruin the conversation. That does not mean evolution isn't a valid theory.

Except that empirical evidence of its validity exists, whereas atheism, when all I said and done, is simply conjecture based off of a lack of evidence to the contrary. That’s a fundamental difference between a scientific theory and a philosophical idea. In fact, if conjecture based off a lack of scientific evidence to the contrary is what makes a theory “scientific”, then technically the idea of a creator is just as “scientific” as atheism, seeing as neither is actually contradicted by science. (Science doesn’t make supernatural claims, it simply can’t by nature). But as you can see, science doesn’t work that way. It doesn’t assume something is right because they have no proof of it being wrong, and atheism is no exception.

Originally Posted by Neruo

The only thing I do have to say, and I think this is what you mean all along, is that Atheism CAN be a blind faith, like religions can.

Yes, and it most often is because, at least from what I have seen, atheists tend to equivocate their non-theistic beliefs with the objectivity of science (if not completely than partially), which then is often coupled with the idea that science is a discipline of certainty, neither of which is true.

Originally Posted by Neruo

Still. Atheism is a perfectly fine scientific theory.

No, it’s a perfectly fine theory. However, there is nothing more “scientific” about it than any other theory assumed to be true because there is no proof of a contradiction. If you wish, I could give you examples demonstrating this point.

The fact is that you cannot prove something by default, be it for or against the existence of a Creator (or anything for that matter). Either claim requires actual, factual evidence in order for it to be scientific, and neither has this. Period.

Originally Posted by Neruo

It can be as scientific as the M-theory, or the theory of dark matter and gravitons. However, in reality, often Atheism isn't seen and Implemented by atheists as a theory, but seen and used as a belief system. Still, that doesn't make it scientifically wrong to believe in Atheism, as it isn't (scientifically) wrong to believe (as long as it isn't absolute belief, and I doubt few atheists are absolutists) in gravity, electrons, radiation, Until proven differently.

I’m sorry but this simply isn’t true, and happens to demonstrate why I feel atheism is a perversion of science. Those theories are scientific because scientific evidence exists in their favor (be it mathematical or otherwise). This is a given for any scientific theory. However, there is no existing evidence supporting atheism because atheism is based off certain evidence not existing. This may have philosophical merit, but it’s scientifically erroneous. There is nothing scientific about assuming something to be true by default, which is exactly what atheism does. And ironically, this is exactly how atheists use science against theists. Talk about a double-edged sword...

Tell me, what do you call a theory that is based off of non-existent evidence? I call it faith, and atheists seem to also. However, atheism by nature its based off of non-existent evidence also, that being lack of proof to the contrary (that god exists).


Atheism is double-standard at heart. All it needs to be true is that there isn’t proof otherwise (that there is proof of a God). However, for that same exact reason, atheists refuse to accept theism. I mean, both claim to be substantiated in the same way, that being by default. Neither thinks there need be any more self-substanation, so long as its opposite is not substantiated.

...

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

...Because Atheism is built on logic & proof, as is science. Not blind faith. Therefore it CAN (Sorta) be a religion, and be scientific (But i never classify Atheism as religion).

No its not, its built off of a lack of proof to the contrary, that being the existence of god. Science can't debunk anything supernatural because it's strictly a natural/physical method of observation and study. This makes any supernatural belief, be it for or against the existence of a God, something beyond what science can prove/disprove much less observe or study.

And even if the notion of a Creator was within the grasp of sceince, which it isnt, you still cannot prove something wrong by lacking evidence. Thats just one of those limitations of science, and anyone with a grounded understanding of the discipline knows and accepts this.

Hey Ethen, since you keep asking me why i am "Obsessed" with Xianity, can you tell me why you are adamant about Atheism being "Unscientific"?

Originally Posted by SilverZero

But atheism asserts there is no God. How can one know that there is no God, unless s/he knows all things? What is your proof that God does not exist?

It is logical to me. So, that is how i look at the universe. Besides, if god made us special, where the hell is he?

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

Hey Ethen, since you keep asking me why i am "Obsessed" with Xianity, can you tell me why you are adamant about Atheism being "Unscientific"?

Because it gives science a bad name.

Besides you don't see me going around making dozens of topics simply to degrade atheism and/or to harass its followers. The only people I do that to are those who do it to others, like yourself, and even still I am not consumed by it as you are. Im just giving people like you a little taste of your own medicine for a change.

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

It is logical to me. So, that is how i look at the universe. Besides, if god made us special, where the hell is he?

Well, if he is a supernatural being and we are imprisioned in the natural world, how could we see him if he did exist? It would be like a character in a video game asking the same questions.

"if there is a creator to all of this, where is he?"
"I dont see a creator anywhere in this world. All there seems to be are these laws that govern everything (man-made program) and nothing else. Therefore there is no creator."

In fact, only way such a character could attempt to prove the existence of the creator is to philosophize about where those laws ultimately came from, because no matter how hard this virtual-person could study its surroundings, there is no way he could "prove" anything beyond the program he is trapped in. It would all have to be speculation, either way.

Originally Posted by ethen

Because it gives science a bad name.

Besides you don't see me going around making dozens of topics simply to degrade atheism and/or to harass its followers. The only people I do that to are those who do it to others, like yourself, and even still I am not consumed by it as you are. Im just giving people like you a little taste of your own medicine for a change.

? ROFL. I made topics to attempt to educate ppl, and ask questions about their religion. If i flame it is because i am annoyed.

(I'm mostly annoyed because:

1. My questions are not answered
2. A flame-war starts because no one can agree)

Originally Posted by ethen

Well, if he is a supernatural being as we are imprisioned in the natural world, how could we see him if he did exist?

Well how the hell did we get the bible? And religion, If we can't detect him? Do you see the flawed logic there?