I think you have just scored yourself a point
Intelligent debate between Theists and Atheists is Impossible on Sciforums
- Thread starter lightgigantic
- Start date
I think you have just scored yourself a point
religion tends to be more synoptic than science - the evidenceis that there are many advancements made in the name of science by the theisticly devoutSince when are you allowed to use logic?
Remember, it is either or: either the scientific or the supernatural approach, can't mix both of them...
Generally I don't like long explantions (unless it is the meaning of life or something) when something could be stated in 2 sentences....
Actually they are just as irrational and perhaps more so.
No, the Big Bang is a hypothesis, it has to be tested and observed before it is a Theory that is if the test was successful.
But again it is a Hypothesis. Millennia ago we recognized Life only came form life, so some one advanced a hypothesis.
TW Scott
Its my general observation that people say one thing is more irrational than another based on value judgements (ie relevance to their own needs, interests and concerns, as opposed to rationality)
And like many empirical theories, from macro evolution, to abiogenesis to the big bang and other theories of universal creation, its not clear exactly how, when or even if they can be tested
At least with life comes from life, it is observable
If you can't see that the defining god thread is in line with that (defining which qualities of god are superior to other qualities) I guess you will just have to satisfy yourself by building lego cars and smashing them up against walls
Only if the poster has something intelligent to say in the first place...
After reading 1-2 lines of The Visitor, I fell asleep and can't engage in any meaningful discussion...
Your eyelids are getting heavy........
And i base it on the fact that you could get a Theist to aggree to Big Bang by stating perhaps that is how god started his little experiment, but psuedo-science worshipper will not even consider the same thing.
macroevolution is testable, but it like the others are only Hypothesis and should not be called theories. They only got their Teory misnomer becuase of people's laziness.
Yes which is why they thought that something vaguely living must have created life.
On the contrary with theism there is the claim of direct perception of god and the process how to achieve that perception - with empirical theories there are no persons in the position of direct perception, what to sepak of processes that enable one to arrive at the position of direct perception
TW Scott
still needs, interests and concerns
really?
Whatever hairs you split to distinguish the distinction between hypothesis and a theory, I think that both of them share a similar realtionship more to each other rather than to the word "fact"
At least its a claim that, in the absence of abiogenesis, is still yet to be proven false
Yes, I responded in that thread. Waited for your reply, that never came...
The offer for the debate is still open. Your religion against the Greek gods...
P.S.: I will even be so nice, you can asign me pretty much ANY religion and I will defend it against yours ASSUMED we are using the same set of standards... I bet you won't take the challenge...
And when we do create "life" in the lab from raw elements and energy, it won't phase theists one bit. All we will have done is show that clever humans can replicate a small part of what god did before there were people, or bacteria. Right?
Since "god" is unprovable, beyond human perception, and in all ways "mysterious", the weak minded have adopted "him" as their life-approach because they don't really have to use logic, evidence, or reason in any capacity to examine or defend such a "being".
P.S. Maybe that's why intelligent debate between theists and atheists is impossible - anywhere.
Another theist bashing site? ooh Lookit all the happy happy atheists!!! Cho chmart!!!
Yawn!
only if first you PROVE that atheists NEVER commit atrocities.
Otherwise, religion is nothing more than a convenient scapegoat.
Last edited:
Sam,
Atheism lays no claims to being moral or good or charitable or loving etc, however, pretty much every religion especially the major ones do claim to hold all these things as sacred yet they still commit atrocities and what is worse, in the name of religion.
What a silly idea. Of course some atheists commit the worst kind of atrocities while others will have the highest moral code imaginable. You cannot draw any conclusions about atheists as a group other than they share a disbelief in gods.
Atheism lays no claims to being moral or good or charitable or loving etc, however, pretty much every religion especially the major ones do claim to hold all these things as sacred yet they still commit atrocities and what is worse, in the name of religion.
It is neither convenient or a scapegoat, it is simply incredibly hypocritical and does commit the worst of the worlds atrocities and claims it doesn’t.
In that case there is no reason they should be interested in the morality of others.