!! an atheist knows what's gonna happen to him after death!!

once you've spent some time here, you'll realise that most atheists [at least the ones representing atheism here] are propounding literalist materialist empiricism. Except when it comes to all the things they believe :D
 
SAM said:
once you've spent some time here, you'll realise that most atheists [at least the ones representing atheism here] are propounding literalist materialist empiricism.
Click to expand...
? That seems to be pretty wildly off target.

What most of them seem to be objecting to is a dogmatic literalism and assignment of empirical significance to the accounts in books of fable and story.

I think if the general run of theist areound here were prepared to accept the relegation of deity to the realm of metaphor and immaterial ideal, much of the apparent conflict would vanish.
 
S.A.M. said:
once you've spent some time here, you'll realise that most atheists [at least the ones representing atheism here] are propounding literalist materialist empiricism. Except when it comes to all the things they believe
Click to expand...


You propound nothing but beliefs you can't explain, evidence you can't produce, absurd assinine assumptions, obtuse obfuscation, disdain for logic & rabid hatred of atheists. And various wild insanities such as kneejerk attacking someone who has just mentioned they are persecuted.

BTW, you're giving moral support to someone who proudly proclaimed he stopped thinking long ago & said that belief producing happiness is more important than belief being truth. Do those apply to you?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
iceaura said:
I think if the general run of theist areound here were prepared to accept the relegation of deity to the realm of metaphor and immaterial ideal, much of the apparent conflict would vanish.
Click to expand...
many things are immaterial and there's no empirical evidence to support them, yet humans believe in them because of altered material things, because of the effects they leave.

an example is: what's the empirical evidence between a sane person and an insane person?


StrangerInAStrangeLa said:
BTW, you're giving moral support to someone who proudly proclaimed he stopped thinking long ago & said that belief producing happiness is more important than belief being truth. Do those apply to you?
Click to expand...
you forgot being a coward snuggling in a hole:D
 
iceaura said:
? That seems to be pretty wildly off target.

What most of them seem to be objecting to is a dogmatic literalism and assignment of empirical significance to the accounts in books of fable and story.

I think if the general run of theist areound here were prepared to accept the relegation of deity to the realm of metaphor and immaterial ideal, much of the apparent conflict would vanish.
Click to expand...
Nicely put, Ice.

scifes said:
many things are immaterial and there's no empirical evidence to support them, yet humans believe in them because of altered material things, because of the effects they leave.

an example is: what's the empirical evidence between a sane person and an insane person?
Click to expand...


Insanity is no longer considered a medical diagnosis but is a legal term in the United States, stemming from its original use in common law.[3] The disorders formerly encompassed by the term covered a wide range of mental disorders now diagnosed as organic brain syndromes, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and other psychotic disorders.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_illness
 
Enmos said:

Insanity is no longer considered a medical diagnosis but is a legal term in the United States, stemming from its original use in common law.[3] The disorders formerly encompassed by the term covered a wide range of mental disorders now diagnosed as organic brain syndromes, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and other psychotic disorders.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_illness
Click to expand...

yeah i know..(?)

what i meant is you can tell a the difference between a sane and insane person by examining the effects of sanity upon a that person's behavior..

if you crack up their skills and compare their brains, you won't find any difference.

empirically, there is no difference between the sane and insane.

so empirical evidence as an ultimate proofing method is a failure.

that's what people in general see, and atheists don't.
 
Enmos said:
Would you like to support that with some evidence ?
Click to expand...
sure, there's plenty, but the easiest is:

anything sophisticated in our world is created by someone.

nature is the most sophisticated, no one know that better than scientists.

hence, nature needs a creator.

How is 'it' being here any indication of a god having effect on 'it' ?
Click to expand...
i've answered that.


besides enmos, it's not fair asking me for evidence for what i say and you not providing for what you say.

i said: no empirical evidence to define sanity.

you said there is.

i asked for examples, not even evidence, and you just ignored it.

everyone ignored my prized philosephy which is also a proof of god, simplified in this post..

others not only do this, but even ignore evidence when i DO present them with it and they change their claims and just change the subject.
 
scifes said:
sure, there's plenty, but the easiest is:

anything sophisticated in our world is created by someone.

nature is the most sophisticated, no one know that better than scientists.

hence, nature needs a creator.


i've answered that.


besides enmos, it's not fair asking me for evidence for what i say and you not providing for what you say.

i said: no empirical evidence to define sanity.

you said there is.

i asked for examples, not even evidence, and you just ignored it.

everyone ignored my prized philosephy which is also a proof of god, simplified in this post..

others not only do this, but even ignore evidence when i DO present them with it and they change their claims and just change the subject.
Click to expand...

You call that evidence ? :roflmao:

As for the difference between sane and insane being empirical, I'm really not required to evidence that because it's off-topic.
But I'll humor you:

em⋅pir⋅i⋅cal
–adjective
1. derived from or guided by experience or experiment.
2. depending upon experience or observation alone, without using scientific method or theory, esp. as in medicine.
3. provable or verifiable by experience or experiment.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/empirical
 
Enmos said:
You call that evidence ? rofl
Click to expand...
yes, what's wrong with it?:mad:


em⋅pir⋅i⋅cal
–adjective
1. derived from or guided by experience or experiment.
2. depending upon experience or observation alone, without using scientific method or theory, esp. as in medicine.
3. provable or verifiable by experience or experiment.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/empirical
Click to expand...
:eek::eek:
then i mistaked it for a method going only by tangible evidence, lots of the terms used in sciforums are new for me.
 
scifes said:
sure, there's plenty, but the easiest is:

anything sophisticated in our world is created by someone.

nature is the most sophisticated, no one know that better than scientists.

hence, nature needs a creator.
Click to expand...

That isn't evidence. That is a view of the world from faith based dogma. It completely ignores everything from an evolutionary standpoint and the mountains of evidence attained thereof.

Firstly, you would have to understand evolution to see how complicated (sophisticated) organisms come from simple beginnings. Over many generations, very small changes or mutations in the organism give rise to increased complication until after many millions of years we have a complicated organism.

In it's most rapid advancement, an organism in which it's generation can span less than a year would see the development of the eye in less than a quarter-million years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top