Leave A Comment
-
My[Confined]Space
Better Than Bread
Movies Coming Soon- Star Trek Books
- Nana Visitor on Blog.trekcore.com discussing “OPEN A CHANNEL: THE WOMEN OF STAR TREK”
- “Star Trek: The Next Generation: 9 A Call To Darkness” Review by Themindreels.com
- Happy 2024 Birthday to Jean Lorrah!
- Clonestar Podcast Interview with Kirsten Beyer
- New Star Trek Book: “It Rhymes With Takei”
- Una McCormack Interview With StarTrekBookClub.com
- Remembering Jeri Taylor, TNG Showrunner and Voyager Co-Creator – This Week in Trek
- Out Today: “Star Trek Explorer #13”
- Out Today: “It’s Not About The Destination: Life Lessons From Star Trek”
- Out Today: “Star Trek: Year Five Deluxe Edition: Book 2”
- Sexy Images of Sexy people
- should I buy this dress?
- What a body 🔥
- My adorable arab face! F19
- I just got new headphones
- They say 33 is the new 23. Fight me on this! 😜
- Gingers have the most fun
- Hope you’re having a safe and relaxing weekend
- Emma Stone
- Black is classic, especially when you’re over 40 [F 45]
- Love the high cut on this one!
- Movie Related Products
- Marvel Studios | Look Ahead | Disney+
- Marvel’s The Art of Ryan Meinerding–The definitive book of MCU concept art
- “Wishmaster” Review
- Teri Garr, Star of ‘Young Frankenstein’ and ‘Tootsie,’ Dies at 79
- “Venom: The Last Dance” Review
- ‘The Mandalorian’ Season 3 and ‘Ahsoka’ Getting 4K Blu-ray Collector’s Edition Steelbooks – Star Wars News Net
- ‘Star Trek: Voyager’ Co-Creator Jeri Taylor Has Passed Away
- “Loudermilk” Review
- “Twisters” Review
- Review: EXO-6’s ‘Star Trek III’ Commander Kruge Figure Is Exhilarating
- Music Video DB
WELL MAYBE HE DOES AND HE JUST DOESNT WANT TO SHOW IT ITS A PRVATE THING YOU KNOW BASEBALLS SOMETIMES PEOPLE TRY TO STEAL THEM OR BURN THEM ALIVE AND SHOOT THEM OUT OF CANNONS WHAT IF THAT BASEBALL WAS RELIGION IT WOULD HAVE BEEN RUINED THATS WHY YOU CANT SHOW THEM IT THEY WIL BURN IN AND SHOOT IT FROM A CANNON
Ah, a classic.
@...Pants: ???
Whenever I see capslock, I just have no desire to read it.
@...Paul_Is_Drunk: thats the poooiiinnnttt!!!
im being ironic, religionfgs always argue loudest
because theyll be damned if you can yell louder than them
Ah, a classic.
@...Pants:
Whenever I see people use more than one exclamation mark, I just have no desire to take it seriously.
@...Pants: Actually our arguments are far more refined than that above dumbass argument. It is so much deeper than a matter of yelling “you can’t prove that” because logically speaking you can’t prove that which is not seen. Any scientific proof of god relies on a purely theoretical/hypothetical level. We have no idea how to set up any experiments that would yield usable data that can prove or disprove god. At this point Atheism/science ( Do we really need to associate atheism with science? I mean, science operates on a completely different level from ) lie on two completely different arguments; those arguments being ” i haven’t seen it therefore it does not exist” and the ” Lack of evidence is not a lack of truth” idea. Personally i find the latter of those two arguments to be the most rational observation because it relies on what i think is a more scientifically sound reasoning. Now i know you will say ” well that is not true, atheism/science have already proved that god doesn’t do anything, People evolved because of genetics not because some dude said so” Well would be right in saying that. That would appear to be HOW man came into being, but it still doesn’t prove anything, all it proves is that nitrogen and carbons are the elemental parts of our DNA and that for some reason or another it becomes modified and blah blah blah… We know how evolution supposedly works, right? Right. But even with that taken into an account we still hit a brick wall. Why does a negative charge attract a positive charge? Why do neutrons stick to protons in an atoms nucleus? Science/atheisms response has been ” we do not know but we are ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN it isn’t god” Now religion also runs into that same brick wall, the classic arguments being ” who created god?” “Why does god do A instead of B. Why doesn’t god show himself.” but instead of saying, “We don’t know, but it isn’t god” or ” It’s not god it’s physics/science” we say ” we don’t know but it COULD be god” As for the rebuttal to the atheist/science argument it could be simply stated as such: If god exists then we can not apply standard scientific thought to it, nor should we assume that it adheres to OUR rules ( think of aliens meeting humans for the first time, Humans and the aliens would both assume that other life is governed by the same scientific models therefore looking and being similar to us). And we also run into another brick wall with science vs Religion. Religion comes in many colors and flavors and it may be that all of those religions are merely interpretations of an unknown force. When you apply a scientific mindset to god you essentially make the assumption that everything you have been told About god is indisputable.That is atheisms largest hindrance. For the most part atheism has just as many legs to stand on as religion. Both are incapable of yielding solid objective evidence. Sorry if any of this sounds unrefined, i can clarify things better later.
tl;dr version.
Shut the fuck up atheism, you are in the same goddamned boat as religion, both of you shut the fuck up and start working together.
@...thelotuseater725: I expected that to be signed “Summer Glau”.
@...thelotuseater725:
Atheism has no agenda. An atheist is perfectly capable of being absolutely insane. He can believe that there’s no gravity and jump from a building – obviously in that case he wouldn’t acknowledge scientific facts. So no, atheism has little to do with science.
But people assume that just because they can disprove certain aspects of certain religions with scientific facts, that means science requires atheism and vice versa.
Anyway, your mind is wasted here. Just wait until some chap comes on and insults you because you wrote more than two lines.
@...thelotuseater725:
Wow, nice straw man.
Atheism: the lack of a belief in God, generally due to a lack of proof, evidence or any compelling reason.
@dieAntagonista: Not only did he write more than 2 lines, at first glance everything seems to be spelled correctly.
@The Lawnmower: thelotuseater725’s argument is no less compelling than anyone else’s on this site. It just happens to sound more educated and less inflammatory. This is all a matter of interpretation and no one has the “correct” answer.
@...howsyoursister:
Haha, oh Lotus’ grammar is fine. He is an extraordinary thinker, and a very open minded theist, though.
As for the religion/ science argument, the problem is obvious.
“Many philosophers of religion and theologians argue that there exists religious knowledge as a domain of knowledge with its own claims and criteria for evaluation. Other philosophers, however, dispute the very existence of such knowledge on the grounds that it fails to meet the criteria of evidence appropriate to science. Here, the criteria of evidence in one domain (science) is used to criticize claims in another domain (religion). Does religious knowledge constitute a legitimate domain of knowledge, with its own propositions and criteria for evidence? The scientific response to such claims is that religious knowledge should count only if it can be presented in terms of scientific evidence and logic. That is, one field is required to submit to the standards of another field. But of course, the very point in the debate is that there are claimed to be two sets of standards.”
– Fallacies and Argument Appraisal/ Cambridge
Oops, that wasn’t even the main point. Here goes.
“It is not difficult to see how an ad ignorantiam argument could be drawn from this case. Proponents of the scientific model essentially argue that because religious knowledge cannot meet the standard of evidence of that model, then there is no ‘evidence’ for it, and on such terms its claims are false or meaningless. A better way for the scientist to proceed would be to evaluate the claims to religious knowledge on their own terms and according to their own criteria.”
God was born out of the massive energy burst that was the Big Bang. Everybody loses, and I win.
@...Sticky: yea you win. since your theory is conventional logic and the rest are religious logic. sticky here is your internetz!
It’s pretty straight forward, and doesn’t require huge pseudo intellectual rants.
Gods are supernatural, science doesn’t deal with the supernatural so trying to prove/disprove religion with science is about as helpful as trying to catch fish with philosophy.
Absolutely nothing we know about the world requires a god to make it possible, or function correctly so why insert one?
Who or what is this God you all speak of?
How can there be a -logical- debate or dialogue about something that defies logical definition?
The bottom line that I see forgotten most often in any religious-like conversing is that [this] is all theory and hypothesis and personal opinion. It is impossible to debate something that has billions of differing definitions. Fools be arguing and debating (the Qualia of Red). The enlightened share ideas and experience.
Know what I hate about religion the most? The shifting of blame and responsibility.
When I go to my catholic relatives for dinner and my aunt makes dinner from food-stuff that my mom provided, and they all start “Dear Lord, we thank you for this blah blah blah…” FUCK YOU! No dang land-owner zapped this meal onto the table upon request, this “Lord” jerk is getting the credit for what -people- did, for what my aunt made and my mom nurtured to life from the soil of the Earth and the light of the fucking Sun.
@sylvanish: So what you’re saying is that you want your aunt to take the blame or responsibility for what she made. Is her cooking that bad?
Btw, repost.
@...dieAntagonista:
“A better way for the scientist to proceed would be to evaluate the claims to religious knowledge on their own terms and according to their own criteria.”
Why on Earth would they do that?
That’s the stupidest thing I’ve read all day.
For the most part most people (in the US) didn’t care what religion said until the attempt to insert it into the science classroom. They’re the ones that tried to use science to prove the unscientific and the unprovable. Obviously atheists and religion(ists) never agreed, but the real antipathy of one for the other went from a slight breeze to a hurricane.
Dumb asses. Atheist have no religious beliefs, but it’s more than that to me. i Hate when Religions try to prove they are right, when everything they show as proof can be Disproved with Understanding and Logic. But if you don’t believe me Read some Richard Dawkins, or talk to somebody with some GODDAMN COMMON SENSE. Also you “Atheist” motherfuckers better know what your talking about before you even Start to talk religion Atheist or not , you motherfuckers better at least have read the Bible once in your life before you even talk. Because more than likely i will think you are just a goddamn idiot. By the way i am an atheist, only after Much study of different religious Text.
The difference between Doing and Knowing is Understanding.
Rational Logic for the fucking win!
@...The Lawnmower:
This is a suggestion by a Cambridge book about argumentation. It can’t be that stupid.
Well for one, there are enough inconsistencies within certain religions, that make it easy for one to disprove aspects of it without bringing science into it at all.
Sounds pretty simple to me.
@...DaveMcDavidson:
I appreciate huge pseudo intellectual rants. They’re more insightful than an, “OMG WIN!”
It’s all about perception. If a theist didn’t perceive this world in a way where it only works if there’s a god in the equation, he wouldn’t be a theist. For example there are theists who recognise the big bang as a scientific fact, but they believe there must have been some force that caused it all to begin with, because they’re spiritual, or because they think there’s proof or because they’re crazy, etc.
Conventional Reaction:
lol.
Religious Reaction (current-day Judeo-Christian version):
THIS ISNT FUNNY!
Religious Reaction (1500s Judeo-European version and current-day Islamic version):
THIS ISNT FUNNY!
IM GOING TO FIND YOU AND KILL YOU.
@...nyokki: For the most part most people (in the US) didn’t care what religion said until the attempt to insert it into the science classroom. They’re the ones that tried to use science to prove the unscientific and the unprovable.
Sorry, but you got that backwards. Clearly you failed US History. 🙂
Christian religion was ALWAYS part of American education until a few crazed atheists got tired of the majority stampeding on their religion (and atheism IS a religion – religion doesn’t mean “worshiping a god”), and took them to court to get it removed from school.
@...The Lawnmower: So because i agree with you yet at the same time disagree you accuse me of making a straw man argument? I never once said that atheism is wrong, just that the way it trys to disprove/prove things is useless for something that lies outside of conventional scientific reasoning. I have already admitted that i can not prove to you god exists because i genuinely have no clue how to go about doing something like that. As i said before, if god exists he/she/it exists in a manner that you and i have no way of detecting. @...dieAntagonista: My grammar was off, the wife kept distracting me while i was typing it up and i was being hasty with it.
@...DaveMcDavidson:
I agreed with you up until this point:
“Absolutely nothing we know about the world requires a god to make it possible, or function correctly so why insert one?”
Who said that god was necessary to make things possible? Again you are making the assumption that our current understanding of god is correct. It is more logical to assume that if god exists he is able to do what he does because the universe and “SCIENCE!” allows him to do so.
@...thelotuseater725: FUCK READING!
@...everyone:
FUCK READING!
@...thelotuseater725:
I didn’t say your grammar is flawless at all times.
Soo, did you take pictures. Of your wife’s distractions. Don’t be selfish Ian.
@...NoOneInParticular:
No religion was specifically taught at public schools. If you were Catholic, you left early every Wednesday for religious instruction (Confraternity of Christian Doctrine). I assume it had something to do w/ Confirmation ad Communion. In many schools, in many places the population was homogeneous and Christianity was assumed and accepted. It still goes on here in WV. Under God was not added to The Pledge of Allegiance until some time in the 50s.
I do not know what was taught prior to the Scopes trial, but I’m guessing that it wasn’t anything as specific as Creationism/Intelligent Design.
@...dieAntagonista: Hey, those are my distractions. You’ll have to make an IRL appearance to see them. For all i know you could be a 45 year old bosnian man.
@...thelotuseater725:
You selfish man, I shake my fist at you.
But I’m just a 20 year old girl, ready to explore your wife’s distractions, you have my word. Actually, people think I’m 16. And when they hear my voice they think I’m 15. Then I tell them about my interests, and they think I’m 27.
Either way, the only thing you have to worry about is a slight sense of paedophilia. We can make it work right?
Do you like Michael Jackson? I do.
@...dieAntagonista: Beat it had an awesome guitar riff. Eddie Van fucking Halen.
Can I still yell “First!”? No? Because I didn’t read any of this. Blah blah blah we’ve heard all this before.
epicurus is my favorite little line to use here. its logical too it has a premise (3 infact) and a conclusion. logic could not be more straight forward. (be warned its very wanky and shows no original thought or intellegence on my part.
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god. ~ Epicurus
@TheLotusEater725
gods are meant to be all powerful creators, being confined to the physical laws and science doesn’t sound logical in that context at all. More importantly if you can’t detect or test his existance within science then how can he be constrained by scientfic laws.
What you’re arguing for really is the god of the gaps – i.e god sits in an area of science we currently don’t have a solid answer for. And we all know how that will play out…
@...thelotuseater725: My personal favourite is Blood on the Dancefloor.
@...rattybad:
No you can’t. Yeah we have heard all this before, but we’ve heard people like you complain before too.
Checkmate.
@...LeeHarveyOswald: I have read the bible several times, along w/ many other books on religion in general, but I’ve bee a atheist my whole life. I don’t have to read the Qur’an to know I disagree w/ its basic tenets. I don’t need to argue every single point that pro-religion thumpers put to me. I only need to disprove one. If one is wrong and it is the word of God, then it’s all wrong.
epic repost respawns same old long religion arguements.