Excellent reply. You are a... Woops. sorry. I was going to call you an intellectual slime mold, but I wont.cool skill said:
War in Heaven (No Atheists)
- Thread starter lixluke
- Start date
It would have been a lie
What???
I'm afraid you'll have to do better than that kewl skill. Indeed, one of these sources is often cited by religious "theologians" and has long been considered a valid source of information. You'll have to show why the reasoning is circular.
If you cannot, the remaining text you decide to post is meaningless since it will simply be words you aren't willing to back up with data or reason.
Show it kewl skill. I won't hold my breath, however, since they're just words you have not intention of supporting.
If you cannot, the remaining text you decide to post is meaningless since it will simply be words you aren't willing to back up with data or reason.
Show it kewl skill. I won't hold my breath, however, since they're just words you have not intention of supporting.
Fanaticism fa·nat·i·cism (fə-năt'ĭ-sĭz'əm) noun:
Providing others with genuine data and leaving them to make up their own minds.
Converse: adhering to unprovable hypotheses in the hope that others will convert to your point of view despite lack of supporting evidence.
Yup, he's right you know...
Providing others with genuine data and leaving them to make up their own minds.
Converse: adhering to unprovable hypotheses in the hope that others will convert to your point of view despite lack of supporting evidence.
Yup, he's right you know...
cool skill said:
I see a claim that atheists are a 'fanatical religion' and then these events followed:
* Evidence was shown to the contrary.
* Questions were asked of you that were not answered.
It doesn't seem they were out to prove anything, after all, you are the claimer and that's ultimately your burden.
Considered by who?SkinWalker said:
More fanatics?
You probably don't even kow what exactly it is you are asking me to prove.
I'd be amazed so see if you could even fill me in a specific idea of mine that you disagree with. Or are you just blabbering on incessantly?
Let's start by you stating exactly which idea it is you disagree with. I'll be back later.
Yes...religious fanatics. But the data appeared useful and the methodologies used to gather the data were sound, so I used it too.
That would appear to be a difference between someone who thinks critically and logically and someone who talks out of their ass: a willingness to examine the data.
I'm was challenging your claim -by hijacking your thread- that atheism is in decline, an assertion I see you've since edited. Since you appear to have given up on that assertion, that leaves the the one that atheists proselytize more than christians and muslims. The two cults I mentioned have doctrines that instruct them to proselytize. Atheists, being free thinkers and not bound to doctrine, have no such mandate.
How is it you intend to demonstrate your claim to be true?
That would appear to be a difference between someone who thinks critically and logically and someone who talks out of their ass: a willingness to examine the data.
I'm was challenging your claim -by hijacking your thread- that atheism is in decline, an assertion I see you've since edited. Since you appear to have given up on that assertion, that leaves the the one that atheists proselytize more than christians and muslims. The two cults I mentioned have doctrines that instruct them to proselytize. Atheists, being free thinkers and not bound to doctrine, have no such mandate.
How is it you intend to demonstrate your claim to be true?
They tend to do just that, and since sciforums has a subforum called religion, why not leave the theists in peace? And opposite, of course... Why fuck up serious peoples posts by calling them "religious nutters" and such?
C
charles cure
Guest
illuminatingtherapy said:They tend to do just that, and since sciforums has a subforum called religion, why not leave the theists in peace? And opposite, of course... Why fuck up serious peoples posts by calling them "religious nutters" and such?
is that a joke?
a forum is a place where things are discussed and debated. whats the point of having a bunch of theists on a science message board engage in an orgy of love for their creator which they all agree exists without needing or providing proof? where's the debate or discussion there? fuck that. if you want to preach to the choir, go to church. if you want to discuss how religion and science interface, be prepared for friction.
We all know this particular subject can't be proved, yet it is something some people hold very dear. Why not just let people debate things related to religion? I don't think it's fair to attack someone (or almost every fucking post made in this forum) simply because your an atheist. I've heard the argument "if you don't like it, leave" at least a dozen of times, but is that fair? Do atheists own this forum? Is it fair that there is a big, bullying atheist gang attacking the significantly lesser group of believers, driving them to other forums simply because they're theists? It's exactly what's happening. I'm not a religious nutter myself, but I find interresting threads being ripped to threads by the endless atheist argument "where's the proof God exists?", when debating could be made amongst those interrested in the topic. What's the point?
cool skill said:
Hi cool skill, this is not the full story, but is connected to your request.
http://www.deliriumsrealm.com/delirium/articleview.asp?Post=171
Jan.
illuminatingtherapy,
you have it all backwards. this is a science website, and rational people need evidence to believe in things and the more outlandish the claim, the stronger the evidence needs to be.
it is well established that religion is nonsensical, and if someone comes to this site (SCI-forums) spouting highly nonsensical stuff, it is our right (I believe duty) to show them the flaws in their logic.
the greatest thing about this site is that people eagerly poke holes in each others theories. just because theists are logically out gunned, does not mean we should go easy on them. its survival of the fittest ideas. religion thrives where there is no logic but when it is competing for territory against science, it will always loose. theists hate having their god(s) defeated so they lash back with baseless ad hominem arguments.
you have it all backwards. this is a science website, and rational people need evidence to believe in things and the more outlandish the claim, the stronger the evidence needs to be.
it is well established that religion is nonsensical, and if someone comes to this site (SCI-forums) spouting highly nonsensical stuff, it is our right (I believe duty) to show them the flaws in their logic.
the greatest thing about this site is that people eagerly poke holes in each others theories. just because theists are logically out gunned, does not mean we should go easy on them. its survival of the fittest ideas. religion thrives where there is no logic but when it is competing for territory against science, it will always loose. theists hate having their god(s) defeated so they lash back with baseless ad hominem arguments.
And that is why there's a religion subforum here? Just to get to prove them wrong?
Where is religion competing for territory? In the religion subforum?
You use the allegory 'out-gunned'. Whould you fire at a person that's unarmed? Poking holes in peoples theories and ideas is one thing, poking at someone for believing is something else.
Why do you need to defeat someones God(s)? And can you honestly say that it applies to all theists? Yes there are religious nutters in here, but that doesn't justify attacking all theists, does it?
No-one said you have to believe anything. If don't believe, then why bother? We all know there's no rational evidence of any God's existence, so why ask? Again, why does it bother you so much?
spiritual_spy said:Coming from a nutter? Religous fools hold no reasoning ability what so ever other wise they would figure out that GOD does not exist!
That is beyond the point - who are you to tell me? I can believe what ever I want
And don't say things like god doesn't exist you little dickless godless commie puff.
it is to discuss how religion relates to science. there are many aspects of religion that can be discussed from a scientific context without claiming a belief.
in society. I was going to clarify that, but I thought it was obvious.
we are talking about a world view. to be "unarmed" is to have no logic. if people choose to stick to an idea after it has been soundly defeated by logic and/or evidence, then it is my right to call them stupid, or a "nutter." stupid
because I believe it is my duty to show people their mistakes. I can't speak for other peoples' reasons.
I have yet to meet a person who likes having their core beliefs overturned, atheist or theist.
I attack the religious ideology of all, I only personally attack those I don't like.
Hey! That was funny!Oli said:
god dosen't exist you transsexual shit-for-brains robot slave to stupidity. Prove he/she/it does or shut the fuck up. That goes for all of you religious asswipes. Prove it or stay the fuck out of public view. It's embarassing for the rest of us and just fucks things up for everyone.Muslim said:
Theist: n. See dickwad.