End of the world, science has agreed?

Discussion in 'Off Topic Area' started by Yama Tombo, Apr 6, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Poop-Loops

    Poop-Loops Banned Banned

    Oh no, this "logic" thing has been around for a while. Ever hear of thing called "science"? It's practically based on it. So I figure there has to be SOME truth to it.

    EDIT:

    And in fact, people use this "logic" thing all the time. It's just that religious people turn it off when they hear the word "God".
     
  2. Ero-Sennin

    Ero-Sennin Well-Known Member Supporter

    I'm a little confused here, correct me if I'm wrong . . . but did you just say that because a lot of people believe in what poop-loops believes in, that there must be some truth to it, and some truth that it is illogical to believe in God?
     
  3. Poop-Loops

    Poop-Loops Banned Banned

    Yeah, punisher, I think it would be better if you stopped supporting me. ;)
     
  4. thepunisher

    thepunisher Banned Banned

    No sparkle, I said that because alot of ppl question religion you can't just simply believe it to be truth based just on your belief. Otherwise there wouldn't be ppl questioning that belief in the first place.

    So hence telling someone, well, thats YOUR truth is wrong because its not only HIS truth but many ppls. There are many more atheists and agonists out there than just poop-loops. And to be honest, he isn't wrong about some of his statements what concern theists.

    Christian
     
  5. wrydolphin

    wrydolphin Pirates... yaarrrr Supporter

    Obviously you haven't followed much of my posting history on this forum to come up with the line about science- which is understandable. I think I have been seen to uphold scientific theory very well. Besides, that arguement is a strawman- religion and science do not have to be contradictory.

    Punisher- point out where I said Poop-Loops was wrong because I say he is wrong because I say he is wrong. I merely pointed out that other people have come to different conclusions and that they have a right to come to those conclusions. Also, if you are trying to make it into some sort of popularity contest- which is silly anyway- atheism looses out by a huge majority. Not to mention the fact that merely because YOU come to a conclusion does not mean that everyone else must come to that same conclusion.

    You are too close, Poop-Loops, to being an evangelical, fundamentalist atheist. You are fully displaying many of the characteristics of Creationists I am constantly debating.
     
  6. Poop-Loops

    Poop-Loops Banned Banned

    What in the hell are you talking about?

    People can have their opinion. Sure. I agree. But if it does not follow logic, then I call it illogical. Any ridicule I throw at them is part of the territory. Just like people who believe that boiling your socks when the mailman walks by will bring good luck. There is no basis in logic.

    If there is not enough evidence to come to a conclusion, then yeah, I see how people can disagree, but at the same time both be logical. However, religion has had zero (0) evidence for its support. "I feel warm inside when I talk to God" is not evidence. I feel warm inside when I stop breathing. I guess God is talking to me then.

    There is no logic or evidence to believing in God. That's all I'm saying.

    You, on the other hand, are having problems beliving that I am God. Why don't you believe it? I said it. It must be true. Look, I even wrote it down, just like the Bible. Worship me!
     
  7. wrydolphin

    wrydolphin Pirates... yaarrrr Supporter

    hmm-
    Intolerance of other's beliefs- check
    Strawman arguements- check
    Unfamiliarity with that which you argue against- check

    Yep- sounds like evangelicism and fundamentalism to me. Except for the topic, you have displayed little difference from the most die-hard Young Earther I have ever come up against.
     
  8. Poop-Loops

    Poop-Loops Banned Banned

    Refuses to understand what I am saying - check
    Ignores my posts and instead changes the subject - check
    Weird ass 3rd criterion - check

    Yep - sounds like you just don't like what I'm saying, so you decide to change the subject. Oh snap! Where have I seen this before? Oh no! Young Earthers!

    There is no evidence for God, that is why I don't believe.

    Believing in something that has no evidence is illogical.

    How much simpler can I put it? Do you need me to draw you a picture?

    Don't give me any of that "But Poop-Loops! There is evidence! It's just not for you!" Evidence is evidence, regardless of who looks at it.
     
  9. dragon_mind1082

    dragon_mind1082 New Member

    the beginning of the end of ignorance

    :Alien: :rolleyes: :Angel: :cry:

    i have come to a general understanding that common sense is not so common as a school teacher once told me. i am aware that things evolve and that everyone can change but the main question is do we want to or are we brite enough to realize truth and compassion for what is real or is it that real is only as far as we believe. see because for me it is extreme to think small minded yet in my mind i think of the big picture but to others it is outrageous. there mind is only of a memory nothing more then is imagination to far off for us to live full of wonder and wanting to find truth in explanation or is it that common sense is only for those who try to find it. maybe we are just not combining and putting together the pieces of the puzzle. to stick with one reason is to deny the fullness of the explanation. to quest for more is to allow more insight into the future. the future is only karma or the law of the earth and universe as a image of what in other words call making the best out of what is and changing for the better to make right or correct our past for what is i believe true forgiveness. to destroy is easy to correct, restore and to truely feel sorry is to build from what is done and make-up what is waiting to be improved.
     
  10. BendzR

    BendzR New Member

    God loves paragraphs. :Angel:
     
  11. Poop-Loops

    Poop-Loops Banned Banned

  12. Ero-Sennin

    Ero-Sennin Well-Known Member Supporter

    Finally, something we can all agree on.
     
  13. wrydolphin

    wrydolphin Pirates... yaarrrr Supporter

    I definately concur.
     
  14. CKava

    CKava Just one more thing... Supporter

    But thats complete nonsense! It's almost as if you have no ability to understand subjective experience and no grasp of the amount of interpretation required to produce theories of any kind... You can say there is no scientific evidence for the existence of God but scientific evidence is not the only type of evidence in the world. If its the only type of evidence you consider significant then thats fine but the rest of the world doesn't have to agree with you... and this is why most people are arguing with you; its not that they don't understand your view (or in the case of some atheists agree with it) it's that you seem to want everyone else to agree your view is the most sensible and basically the best.

    In a court case witness testimony tends to play as big a part as forensic evidence yet following your argument it seems that if a prosecutor had 10 eye witnesses to a murder but no forensic evidence to back it up then the prosecutor should just give up and admit there is no evidence for his case. Does this sound logical to you?
     
  15. thepunisher

    thepunisher Banned Banned

    A belief isn't evidence....

    I think the point poop-loop is trying to make is that simply saying:" There is a god because I believe in him." isn't evidence. And its true, it isn't. Just because you have faith in something, doesn't necessarily mean its true. I can also claim that we originally came from mars men and have a strong believe in it being right but I can imagine lots of you would go at me and call me nuts however much I would believe in it. Why ? Because I have no evidence to back it up.

    And this is also were the difference comes between being an atheist/agonist and a believer. We won't take the bible as evidence or just someones word because it simply isn't evidence. And science can be used as a very good counterargument concerning that. So whether you have a belief doesn't make a difference..its not evidence.

    As for theists calling atheists/agonists 'ignorant': Sorry to say that but that is a strawman response. Ignorant of what ? Its a common accusation towards agonists/atheist but except for being an outburst it doesn't say anything. Someones ignorant because he doesn't believe you ? Doesn't see the same things as you ? Wants to see something to back up your claim ?

    If we would want to apply belief to the evidence in the bible we wouldn't be questioning it. So maybe a theist could be considerered ignorant because he/she does ? Because he/she can't step out of that belief in order to see the bible and god in a different light ? Yeah, I could consider that ignorant. Especially with all the scientific evidence around proving so many facts wrong in the bible.

    Christian
     
  16. wrydolphin

    wrydolphin Pirates... yaarrrr Supporter

    On the same hand- saying that there is no God because I DON'T believe in him isn't evidence either. At no point has anyone said that you have to find what another considers evidence of God as significant enough to warrent your PERSONAL belief in God. However, your disbelief in God is not and should not warrent the statement that someone who believes in God is either ignorant or stupid. Nor does your disbelief give you any right to say that all people should believe as you do.

    Further, just because you are reading evidence in a certain way does not, in point of fact, make your interpretation a hundred percent correct. For someone who spends so much time talking about science, Poop-Loops should know that by now. Scientists are constantly debating the same evidence and coming up with different conclusions- how else do you explain scientific debate? If you don't understand that, spend some time in a university library going through the physical anthropology journals where scientists discuss finds and conduct real studies. Spend some time at a conference where the debates are conducted. Heck- just go to your local bookstore and wonder down the Evolutionary Studies section of the Science area. Neo-Darwinism, Pucntuated Equilibrium, Red Queen theory, Symbiotic theory- just to name a few. And they are all looking at the same sets of data and coming up with different theories.

    Poop-Loops doesn't believe in God- and that's fine. I do not dictate that he must- nor have I ever. However, I will call him for presenting bad arguements and declaring that all people must believe there is no God.
     
  17. Poop-Loops

    Poop-Loops Banned Banned

    Of course not. It's the only GOOD kind. There is plenty of bad evidence in the world. Such as no evidence. I've never seen any "other" type of evidence hold up anywhere but quack circles.

    Nobody said they did. But you cannot call yourself both intelligent and say you don't think scientific evidence is what we need at the same time.

    I'm sorry. I stubbed my toe. I guess that means God is watching. Hey look! I can come up with bad evidence too! Why won't you believe me? :(

    Has anybody witnessed God by eye?
     
  18. Poop-Loops

    Poop-Loops Banned Banned

    For the last time, YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE, NOT ME!!!!!!!! I just say "that's not evidence enough", you have to go out and look for it, since you are saying there is a God.

    Of course not. That's not what I'm argueing. I am arguing that the other person is simply wrong.

    I can say whatever <profanity>I want. If they can say they believe in God, I can say they shouldn't. The problem is, people who believe in God have this aweful thought pattern. "I read moldy, old, heavily translated book. Science is so far not hinting there is a God. Guy in robe who lives off of charity told me there is a God. He must be right!"

    What evidence? I keep asking for it, but you never give it to me, just tell me I am wrong. Where is this evidence?

    About things they aren't sure of yet. Firstly, they need SOME evidence. I have seen none.

    I've seen arguements. It goes like this "I found this and this evidence, I think it means such and such." Where is the evidence, though?

    Logical people must not believe in God. If you don't want to be logical, fine by me.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 22, 2006
  19. Topher

    Topher allo!

    On the issue of subjectivity, if someone says “aliens landed outside my street last night” most people will ask for proof or believe someother explanation. They’ve every reason of doubting unless such proof if presented. Simple.

    If someone says they spoke with God people will naturally accept the most plausible explanation for it. Maybe there nuts, maybe the dreamt they did, maybe they believe they did, maybe were speaking with “god” in their mind… These are better explanation because we know they actually happen. It’s only when every explanation that you know is possible doesn’t explain it do you consider unknown explanations.
     
  20. Poop-Loops

    Poop-Loops Banned Banned

    Thank you for wording it better than I ever could.

    There you have it. I hope there is no more confusion now.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page