CDZ Three unanswered yet interesting questions pertaining to life

[Iceweasel]

There's no such thing as a agnostic atheist. Someone made that up to feel better about their atheism. I've told you at least 20 times I'm not religious. It's simply too much for you to grasp.

I am an ignostic. Agnosticism is a subset of atheism. Ignosticism is a subset of agnosticism. Yes, all these schools of thought do exist.

No, agnostic means you don't know. The words are in the dictionary. I am well familiar with the attempt by atheists to massage meanings.

You don't know for sure either. You miss the point. We will agree you can't know gods don't exist so no one can be an athiest if it means you KNOW gods don't exist because you can't know. If that's true then you can't be a theist either because you can't know for sure.

Is my invisible pink dragon real? Prove its not

Critical thinking isn't your strong point. I believe in a creator, so I'm a theist. I can't and don't need to prove it, it's a matter of faith, because like I said repeatedly, I don't have enough faith to believe the universe popped into existence on its' own accord.

The inconsistency is with those that pretend they adhere to science, yet call themselves atheist. They are making a claim science can't support. Atheists getting upset over that fact isn't my problem. They can continue to live in a deluded state or embrace honesty. So you miss the point.

Im just telling you that I don't believe in God because you can't provide any scientific evidence.

Science and God don't mix so yes, neither does atheism and science. Us atheists just use science to explain why we don't believe.

Without science prove my invisible pink dragon isn't real

I don't care what you believe in. At no point did I assume the responsibility for your thoughts. Atheism and science doesn't mix so that's why you believe in atheism?

What. The. Fuck.

 

[Iceweasel]

"Just want to point out that atheism is a religion, based on faith as much as any other."
No, not if you're doing it right.

Sure it is. No god = belief. That's a statement of faith, not science.

If science doesn't have any evidence there's a god what should it conclude?

What about my pink dragon. No pink dragon = belief? Is that faith?

You are free to be as deluded as you want. Science should continue doing what it does and ignore statements of faith. Those that misuse science as faith only delude themselves.

What about people who use science to justify their doubts? Why are they deluding themselves?

A god doubter is an agnostic. The atheist cannot account for our existence so when they dismiss a creator they are making a statement of faith.

 

[sealybobo]

"Just want to point out that atheism is a religion, based on faith as much as any other."
No, not if you're doing it right.

Sure it is. No god = belief. That's a statement of faith, not science.

If science doesn't have any evidence there's a god what should it conclude?

What about my pink dragon. No pink dragon = belief? Is that faith?

You are free to be as deluded as you want. Science should continue doing what it does and ignore statements of faith. Those that misuse science as faith only delude themselves.

That's why science doesn't talk about God. There's zero science behind the hypothesis.

So don't use it.

Then realize how difficult it is to explain without science

Science says you can't claim something is real in any meaningful way without being able to provide evidence.

 

[Iceweasel]

Sure it is. No god = belief. That's a statement of faith, not science.

If science doesn't have any evidence there's a god what should it conclude?

What about my pink dragon. No pink dragon = belief? Is that faith?

You are free to be as deluded as you want. Science should continue doing what it does and ignore statements of faith. Those that misuse science as faith only delude themselves.

That's why science doesn't talk about God. There's zero science behind the hypothesis.

So don't use it.

Then realize how difficult it is to explain without science

Science says you can't claim something is real in any meaningful way without being able to provide evidence.

I never made the claim that science can prove god is real. I only pointed out that it can't say otherwise and the theist and atheist both have faith. One is honest, the other not.

 

[sealybobo]

If science doesn't have any evidence there's a god what should it conclude?

What about my pink dragon. No pink dragon = belief? Is that faith?

You are free to be as deluded as you want. Science should continue doing what it does and ignore statements of faith. Those that misuse science as faith only delude themselves.

That's why science doesn't talk about God. There's zero science behind the hypothesis.

So don't use it.

Then realize how difficult it is to explain without science

Science says you can't claim something is real in any meaningful way without being able to provide evidence.

I never made the claim that science can prove god is real. I only pointed out that it can't say otherwise and the theist and atheist both have faith. One is honest, the other not.

I think you are hung up on a technicality and this argument can just keep going in circles. I'll admit that science can't disprove the creature you people have made up in your head.

In fact, from now on, whatever you imagine in your head is real. Why? Because I can't prove it's not. And you don't have to provide me with any evidence. I'll just believe whatever you tell me even if you have ZERO evidence to back up your extraordinary claims.

I look around the universe and see no god. Why is it hiding? Why isn't it more obvious? It can turn itself into a solid, yes?

And how did god make the universe? What is the science behind this hypothesis?

Want to show me a miracle? Show me an amputees limb grow back on it's own overnight. But you can't show me that. What will happen though is science will figure out how to grow a limb and then you'll thank the lord for giving them the wisdom. LOL.

 

[sealybobo]

If science doesn't have any evidence there's a god what should it conclude?

What about my pink dragon. No pink dragon = belief? Is that faith?

You are free to be as deluded as you want. Science should continue doing what it does and ignore statements of faith. Those that misuse science as faith only delude themselves.

That's why science doesn't talk about God. There's zero science behind the hypothesis.

So don't use it.

Then realize how difficult it is to explain without science

Science says you can't claim something is real in any meaningful way without being able to provide evidence.

I never made the claim that science can prove god is real. I only pointed out that it can't say otherwise and the theist and atheist both have faith. One is honest, the other not.

Science can’t explain X, therefore god/theism.
God of the gaps. Argument from Ignorance.

Simply because you or the scientific community lack a complete understanding of something does not imply a theistic explanation carries any value. Even if there exists some topic on which science can never speak, any understanding could potentially evade us forever – supernatural or metaphysical speculation would not automatically be correct. Uncertainty is the most legitimate position.

Lightning, earthquakes, volcanos, disease, mental illness, planetary orbits and numerous other phenomena have been historically labelled ‘supernatural’ only to later be more thoroughly and elegantly explained by science. In fact, every mystery ever demonstrably solved has had a non-supernatural explanation. To suggest that science cannot or will not explain a phenomena, and that only theism can, is hubris of the highest order.

Using ‘god’ to explain something explains nothing. God’s supposed powers and how they work are a mystery. An explanation is intended to clarify and extend knowledge. Attributing a phenomenon to the magical powers of a supernatural being does neither. Worse still, this presumption acts to prevent any deeper investigation, being little more than a form of blissful ignorance.

By using ‘god’ to fill gaps in their knowledge theists inadvertently provide a shrinking role for their god as science advances. They also predicate god’s existence on a lack of knowledge, not on any positive argument or evidence.

“I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.” – Richard Dawkins

“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.” – Charles Darwin

 

[sealybobo]

"Just want to point out that atheism is a religion, based on faith as much as any other."
No, not if you're doing it right.

Sure it is. No god = belief. That's a statement of faith, not science.

If science doesn't have any evidence there's a god what should it conclude?

What about my pink dragon. No pink dragon = belief? Is that faith?

You are free to be as deluded as you want. Science should continue doing what it does and ignore statements of faith. Those that misuse science as faith only delude themselves.

What about people who use science to justify their doubts? Why are they deluding themselves?

A god doubter is an agnostic. The atheist cannot account for our existence so when they dismiss a creator they are making a statement of faith.

And when you talk of a creator as a fact, you are making an assertion based on ignorance. It's ok. It's not your fault.

Phenomenon X has a non-physical component.
Baseless assertion. Unfalsifiable. How can you prove it?

There have been numerous claims of the supernatural, none of which have ever been demonstrated to be true. Furthermore, these claims are often mutually contradictory, and people who believe in one form of supernatural or paranormal activity will usually not believe in others due to cognitive bias and wishful thinking.

Proposing a non-physical explanation for an observed or imagined/fabricated phenomena is not a testable hypothesis and is therefore unworthy of serious consideration. It precludes any deeper insight or understanding and offers no means of distinction from any other possible supernatural claim.

There are many as yet unexplained phenomena and anomalies in nature. The scientific approach to these is to say “I don’t know yet” and keep on looking, not to presume an answer which makes us comfortable.

Note: This claim often represents a deep discomfort with uncertainty or ambiguity, demonstrating a lack of critical thinking or poor understanding of a topic. It usually coincides with credulity, which is the tendency to believe in propositions unsupported by evidence. See also: gullibility.

See also: Critical Thinking (a must watch), Open-Mindedness (a must watch), Nobel Laureate Richard Feynman on Doubt and Uncertainty (a must watch), Delusion,Magical Thinking, Superstition, Self-Deception.

“What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.” – Christopher Hitchens

“I don’t feel frightened by not knowing things, I think it’s much more interesting that way … I have approximate answers, and possible beliefs, and different degrees of certainty about different things, but I’m not absolutely sure of anything. I might think about it a little, but if I can’t figure it out, then I go to something else. It doesn’t frighten me.” – Richard Feynman

 

[Iceweasel]

You are free to be as deluded as you want. Science should continue doing what it does and ignore statements of faith. Those that misuse science as faith only delude themselves.

That's why science doesn't talk about God. There's zero science behind the hypothesis.

So don't use it.

Then realize how difficult it is to explain without science

Science says you can't claim something is real in any meaningful way without being able to provide evidence.

I never made the claim that science can prove god is real. I only pointed out that it can't say otherwise and the theist and atheist both have faith. One is honest, the other not.

I think you are hung up on a technicality and this argument can just keep going in circles. I'll admit that science can't disprove the creature you people have made up in your head.

In fact, from now on, whatever you imagine in your head is real. Why? Because I can't prove it's not. And you don't have to provide me with any evidence. I'll just believe whatever you tell me even if you have ZERO evidence to back up your extraordinary claims.

I look around the universe and see no god. Why is it hiding? Why isn't it more obvious? It can turn itself into a solid, yes?

And how did god make the universe? What is the science behind this hypothesis?

Want to show me a miracle? Show me an amputees limb grow back on it's own overnight. But you can't show me that. What will happen though is science will figure out how to grow a limb and then you'll thank the lord for giving them the wisdom. LOL.

I think you like to make accusations instead of thinking. I said what I believe and why and you are asking for proof, while hypocritically pretending to be science minded. You aren't. You don't even understand the scientific principle, it doesn't make the claims you do and putting words in my mouth is all you have.

Come back when you can cobble together a coherent thought. That will require steering clear of your bong for a while.

 

[sealybobo]

As an agnostic atheist I can't say 100% sure there is no god but from what I can tell, there isn't. Same with ghosts angels and devils.

 

[Iceweasel]

You are free to be as deluded as you want. Science should continue doing what it does and ignore statements of faith. Those that misuse science as faith only delude themselves.

That's why science doesn't talk about God. There's zero science behind the hypothesis.

So don't use it.

Then realize how difficult it is to explain without science

Science says you can't claim something is real in any meaningful way without being able to provide evidence.

I never made the claim that science can prove god is real. I only pointed out that it can't say otherwise and the theist and atheist both have faith. One is honest, the other not.

Science can’t explain X, therefore god/theism.
God of the gaps. Argument from Ignorance.

Simply because you or the scientific community lack a complete understanding of something does not imply a theistic explanation carries any value. Even if there exists some topic on which science can never speak, any understanding could potentially evade us forever – supernatural or metaphysical speculation would not automatically be correct. Uncertainty is the most legitimate position.

Lightning, earthquakes, volcanos, disease, mental illness, planetary orbits and numerous other phenomena have been historically labelled ‘supernatural’ only to later be more thoroughly and elegantly explained by science. In fact, every mystery ever demonstrably solved has had a non-supernatural explanation. To suggest that science cannot or will not explain a phenomena, and that only theism can, is hubris of the highest order.

Using ‘god’ to explain something explains nothing. God’s supposed powers and how they work are a mystery. An explanation is intended to clarify and extend knowledge. Attributing a phenomenon to the magical powers of a supernatural being does neither. Worse still, this presumption acts to prevent any deeper investigation, being little more than a form of blissful ignorance.

By using ‘god’ to fill gaps in their knowledge theists inadvertently provide a shrinking role for their god as science advances. They also predicate god’s existence on a lack of knowledge, not on any positive argument or evidence.

“I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.” – Richard Dawkins

“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.” – Charles Darwin

...yawn. You forgot to provide evidence for a secular cause. You can't so smearing people is all you have. That's your problem, I'll just point out the hypocrisy.

 

[sealybobo]

That's why science doesn't talk about God. There's zero science behind the hypothesis.

So don't use it.

Then realize how difficult it is to explain without science

Science says you can't claim something is real in any meaningful way without being able to provide evidence.

I never made the claim that science can prove god is real. I only pointed out that it can't say otherwise and the theist and atheist both have faith. One is honest, the other not.

I think you are hung up on a technicality and this argument can just keep going in circles. I'll admit that science can't disprove the creature you people have made up in your head.

In fact, from now on, whatever you imagine in your head is real. Why? Because I can't prove it's not. And you don't have to provide me with any evidence. I'll just believe whatever you tell me even if you have ZERO evidence to back up your extraordinary claims.

I look around the universe and see no god. Why is it hiding? Why isn't it more obvious? It can turn itself into a solid, yes?

And how did god make the universe? What is the science behind this hypothesis?

Want to show me a miracle? Show me an amputees limb grow back on it's own overnight. But you can't show me that. What will happen though is science will figure out how to grow a limb and then you'll thank the lord for giving them the wisdom. LOL.

I think you like to make accusations instead of thinking. I said what I believe and why and you are asking for proof, while hypocritically pretending to be science minded. You aren't. You don't even understand the scientific principle, it doesn't make the claims you do and putting words in my mouth is all you have.

Come back when you can cobble together a coherent thought. That will require steering clear of your bong for a while.

Do you believe in angels ghosts and devils? I can't prove they don't exist either. How about pink invisible dragons?

Religion and science are like oil and water. They don't mix. You have to be a brainwashed superstitious sap to buy into religion. Now that takes faith.

 

[sealybobo]

That's why science doesn't talk about God. There's zero science behind the hypothesis.

So don't use it.

Then realize how difficult it is to explain without science

Science says you can't claim something is real in any meaningful way without being able to provide evidence.

I never made the claim that science can prove god is real. I only pointed out that it can't say otherwise and the theist and atheist both have faith. One is honest, the other not.

Science can’t explain X, therefore god/theism.
God of the gaps. Argument from Ignorance.

Simply because you or the scientific community lack a complete understanding of something does not imply a theistic explanation carries any value. Even if there exists some topic on which science can never speak, any understanding could potentially evade us forever – supernatural or metaphysical speculation would not automatically be correct. Uncertainty is the most legitimate position.

Lightning, earthquakes, volcanos, disease, mental illness, planetary orbits and numerous other phenomena have been historically labelled ‘supernatural’ only to later be more thoroughly and elegantly explained by science. In fact, every mystery ever demonstrably solved has had a non-supernatural explanation. To suggest that science cannot or will not explain a phenomena, and that only theism can, is hubris of the highest order.

Using ‘god’ to explain something explains nothing. God’s supposed powers and how they work are a mystery. An explanation is intended to clarify and extend knowledge. Attributing a phenomenon to the magical powers of a supernatural being does neither. Worse still, this presumption acts to prevent any deeper investigation, being little more than a form of blissful ignorance.

By using ‘god’ to fill gaps in their knowledge theists inadvertently provide a shrinking role for their god as science advances. They also predicate god’s existence on a lack of knowledge, not on any positive argument or evidence.

“I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.” – Richard Dawkins

“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.” – Charles Darwin

...yawn. You forgot to provide evidence for a secular cause. You can't so smearing people is all you have. That's your problem, I'll just point out the hypocrisy.

So it comes down to this. Here is your argument:

You can't prove my pink dragon and god(s) aren't real so



And you admitted you are not religious, right? Well consider this. Your side was not winning the god debate so they had to lie and say he visited. You know that is true otherwise you wouldn't be denying Jesus was the real son of god.

 

[Iceweasel]

So don't use it.

Then realize how difficult it is to explain without science

Science says you can't claim something is real in any meaningful way without being able to provide evidence.

I never made the claim that science can prove god is real. I only pointed out that it can't say otherwise and the theist and atheist both have faith. One is honest, the other not.

Science can’t explain X, therefore god/theism.
God of the gaps. Argument from Ignorance.

Simply because you or the scientific community lack a complete understanding of something does not imply a theistic explanation carries any value. Even if there exists some topic on which science can never speak, any understanding could potentially evade us forever – supernatural or metaphysical speculation would not automatically be correct. Uncertainty is the most legitimate position.

Lightning, earthquakes, volcanos, disease, mental illness, planetary orbits and numerous other phenomena have been historically labelled ‘supernatural’ only to later be more thoroughly and elegantly explained by science. In fact, every mystery ever demonstrably solved has had a non-supernatural explanation. To suggest that science cannot or will not explain a phenomena, and that only theism can, is hubris of the highest order.

Using ‘god’ to explain something explains nothing. God’s supposed powers and how they work are a mystery. An explanation is intended to clarify and extend knowledge. Attributing a phenomenon to the magical powers of a supernatural being does neither. Worse still, this presumption acts to prevent any deeper investigation, being little more than a form of blissful ignorance.

By using ‘god’ to fill gaps in their knowledge theists inadvertently provide a shrinking role for their god as science advances. They also predicate god’s existence on a lack of knowledge, not on any positive argument or evidence.

“I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.” – Richard Dawkins

“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.” – Charles Darwin

...yawn. You forgot to provide evidence for a secular cause. You can't so smearing people is all you have. That's your problem, I'll just point out the hypocrisy.

So it comes down to this. Here is your argument:

You can't prove my pink dragon and god(s) aren't real so



And you admitted you are not religious, right? Well consider this. Your side was not winning the god debate so they had to lie and say he visited. You know that is true otherwise you wouldn't be denying Jesus was the real son of god.

You aren't worth talking to.

 

[sealybobo]

That's why science doesn't talk about God. There's zero science behind the hypothesis.

So don't use it.

Then realize how difficult it is to explain without science

Science says you can't claim something is real in any meaningful way without being able to provide evidence.

I never made the claim that science can prove god is real. I only pointed out that it can't say otherwise and the theist and atheist both have faith. One is honest, the other not.

Science can’t explain X, therefore god/theism.
God of the gaps. Argument from Ignorance.

Simply because you or the scientific community lack a complete understanding of something does not imply a theistic explanation carries any value. Even if there exists some topic on which science can never speak, any understanding could potentially evade us forever – supernatural or metaphysical speculation would not automatically be correct. Uncertainty is the most legitimate position.

Lightning, earthquakes, volcanos, disease, mental illness, planetary orbits and numerous other phenomena have been historically labelled ‘supernatural’ only to later be more thoroughly and elegantly explained by science. In fact, every mystery ever demonstrably solved has had a non-supernatural explanation. To suggest that science cannot or will not explain a phenomena, and that only theism can, is hubris of the highest order.

Using ‘god’ to explain something explains nothing. God’s supposed powers and how they work are a mystery. An explanation is intended to clarify and extend knowledge. Attributing a phenomenon to the magical powers of a supernatural being does neither. Worse still, this presumption acts to prevent any deeper investigation, being little more than a form of blissful ignorance.

By using ‘god’ to fill gaps in their knowledge theists inadvertently provide a shrinking role for their god as science advances. They also predicate god’s existence on a lack of knowledge, not on any positive argument or evidence.

“I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.” – Richard Dawkins

“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.” – Charles Darwin

...yawn. You forgot to provide evidence for a secular cause. You can't so smearing people is all you have. That's your problem, I'll just point out the hypocrisy.

A person who disbelieves for poor reasons is no better off than someone who believes for poor reasons. Disbelieving in astrology because a priest tells you to is no better than believing in a god because the same priest tells you to do so.

Science observes the physical universe, makes models of how it works and then refines those models through further observation. When something interacts with the physical universe, such as through light, motion, sound, heat, mass or gravity, it becomes a natural phenomena and thus open to scientific inquiry. If it does not interact with the physical universe then it cannot be said to exist in any meaningful or perceivable way.

 

[sealybobo]

Then realize how difficult it is to explain without science

Science says you can't claim something is real in any meaningful way without being able to provide evidence.

I never made the claim that science can prove god is real. I only pointed out that it can't say otherwise and the theist and atheist both have faith. One is honest, the other not.

Science can’t explain X, therefore god/theism.
God of the gaps. Argument from Ignorance.

Simply because you or the scientific community lack a complete understanding of something does not imply a theistic explanation carries any value. Even if there exists some topic on which science can never speak, any understanding could potentially evade us forever – supernatural or metaphysical speculation would not automatically be correct. Uncertainty is the most legitimate position.

Lightning, earthquakes, volcanos, disease, mental illness, planetary orbits and numerous other phenomena have been historically labelled ‘supernatural’ only to later be more thoroughly and elegantly explained by science. In fact, every mystery ever demonstrably solved has had a non-supernatural explanation. To suggest that science cannot or will not explain a phenomena, and that only theism can, is hubris of the highest order.

Using ‘god’ to explain something explains nothing. God’s supposed powers and how they work are a mystery. An explanation is intended to clarify and extend knowledge. Attributing a phenomenon to the magical powers of a supernatural being does neither. Worse still, this presumption acts to prevent any deeper investigation, being little more than a form of blissful ignorance.

By using ‘god’ to fill gaps in their knowledge theists inadvertently provide a shrinking role for their god as science advances. They also predicate god’s existence on a lack of knowledge, not on any positive argument or evidence.

“I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.” – Richard Dawkins

“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.” – Charles Darwin

...yawn. You forgot to provide evidence for a secular cause. You can't so smearing people is all you have. That's your problem, I'll just point out the hypocrisy.

So it comes down to this. Here is your argument:

You can't prove my pink dragon and god(s) aren't real so



And you admitted you are not religious, right? Well consider this. Your side was not winning the god debate so they had to lie and say he visited. You know that is true otherwise you wouldn't be denying Jesus was the real son of god.

You aren't worth talking to.

Actually, it is you who's not worth talking to. So fuck off.

Proposing the existence of an entity or phenomena that can never be investigated via empirical, experimental or reproducible means moves it from the realm of reality and into the realm of unfalsifiable speculation. The inability of science to investigate or disprove such a hypothesis is not the same as proving it true and neither does it automatically lend credence to any metaphysical or theological argument. If such reasoning were actually permissible then one could claim anything imaginable to be real or true if only because it could not be proven false.

Relying on supernatural explanations is a cop-out or a dead-end to deepening our understanding of reality. If a natural cause for something is not known, the scientific approach is to say “I don’t know yet” and keep on looking, not to presume an answer which makes us comfortable.

 

[sealybobo]

Then realize how difficult it is to explain without science

Science says you can't claim something is real in any meaningful way without being able to provide evidence.

I never made the claim that science can prove god is real. I only pointed out that it can't say otherwise and the theist and atheist both have faith. One is honest, the other not.

Science can’t explain X, therefore god/theism.
God of the gaps. Argument from Ignorance.

Simply because you or the scientific community lack a complete understanding of something does not imply a theistic explanation carries any value. Even if there exists some topic on which science can never speak, any understanding could potentially evade us forever – supernatural or metaphysical speculation would not automatically be correct. Uncertainty is the most legitimate position.

Lightning, earthquakes, volcanos, disease, mental illness, planetary orbits and numerous other phenomena have been historically labelled ‘supernatural’ only to later be more thoroughly and elegantly explained by science. In fact, every mystery ever demonstrably solved has had a non-supernatural explanation. To suggest that science cannot or will not explain a phenomena, and that only theism can, is hubris of the highest order.

Using ‘god’ to explain something explains nothing. God’s supposed powers and how they work are a mystery. An explanation is intended to clarify and extend knowledge. Attributing a phenomenon to the magical powers of a supernatural being does neither. Worse still, this presumption acts to prevent any deeper investigation, being little more than a form of blissful ignorance.

By using ‘god’ to fill gaps in their knowledge theists inadvertently provide a shrinking role for their god as science advances. They also predicate god’s existence on a lack of knowledge, not on any positive argument or evidence.

“I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.” – Richard Dawkins

“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.” – Charles Darwin

...yawn. You forgot to provide evidence for a secular cause. You can't so smearing people is all you have. That's your problem, I'll just point out the hypocrisy.

So it comes down to this. Here is your argument:

You can't prove my pink dragon and god(s) aren't real so



And you admitted you are not religious, right? Well consider this. Your side was not winning the god debate so they had to lie and say he visited. You know that is true otherwise you wouldn't be denying Jesus was the real son of god.

You aren't worth talking to.

Why when you don't belong to any religion does this bother you so much? Fucking pussy. I'm just trying to explain why you are stupid.

I can’t believe/understand a world without God OR No god is too unlikely.
Argument from incredulity / Lack of imagination and Argumentum ad Ignorantiam. Ignores and does not eliminate the fact that something can seem incredible or unlikely and still be true, or appear to be obvious or likely and yet still be false.

The world is the way it is. Reality does not bend to our personal whim and facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. Our personal belief in something does not automatically make it real or true and, conversely, our lack of understanding of a topic does not make it false.

Until we understand something we “do not know”. Positing a ‘god’ in place of admitting personal ignorance is an unfounded leap which demonstrates a fundamental lack of humility.

The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.

 

[Iceweasel]

So don't use it.

Then realize how difficult it is to explain without science

Science says you can't claim something is real in any meaningful way without being able to provide evidence.

I never made the claim that science can prove god is real. I only pointed out that it can't say otherwise and the theist and atheist both have faith. One is honest, the other not.

Science can’t explain X, therefore god/theism.
God of the gaps. Argument from Ignorance.

Simply because you or the scientific community lack a complete understanding of something does not imply a theistic explanation carries any value. Even if there exists some topic on which science can never speak, any understanding could potentially evade us forever – supernatural or metaphysical speculation would not automatically be correct. Uncertainty is the most legitimate position.

Lightning, earthquakes, volcanos, disease, mental illness, planetary orbits and numerous other phenomena have been historically labelled ‘supernatural’ only to later be more thoroughly and elegantly explained by science. In fact, every mystery ever demonstrably solved has had a non-supernatural explanation. To suggest that science cannot or will not explain a phenomena, and that only theism can, is hubris of the highest order.

Using ‘god’ to explain something explains nothing. God’s supposed powers and how they work are a mystery. An explanation is intended to clarify and extend knowledge. Attributing a phenomenon to the magical powers of a supernatural being does neither. Worse still, this presumption acts to prevent any deeper investigation, being little more than a form of blissful ignorance.

By using ‘god’ to fill gaps in their knowledge theists inadvertently provide a shrinking role for their god as science advances. They also predicate god’s existence on a lack of knowledge, not on any positive argument or evidence.

“I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.” – Richard Dawkins

“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.” – Charles Darwin

...yawn. You forgot to provide evidence for a secular cause. You can't so smearing people is all you have. That's your problem, I'll just point out the hypocrisy.

A person who disbelieves for poor reasons is no better off than someone who believes for poor reasons. Disbelieving in astrology because a priest tells you to is no better than believing in a god because the same priest tells you to do so.

Science observes the physical universe, makes models of how it works and then refines those models through further observation. When something interacts with the physical universe, such as through light, motion, sound, heat, mass or gravity, it becomes a natural phenomena and thus open to scientific inquiry. If it does not interact with the physical universe then it cannot be said to exist in any meaningful or perceivable way.

I didn't make those arguments and pointed out that you are too stupid to talk to.

 

[sealybobo]

Then realize how difficult it is to explain without science

Science says you can't claim something is real in any meaningful way without being able to provide evidence.

I never made the claim that science can prove god is real. I only pointed out that it can't say otherwise and the theist and atheist both have faith. One is honest, the other not.

Science can’t explain X, therefore god/theism.
God of the gaps. Argument from Ignorance.

Simply because you or the scientific community lack a complete understanding of something does not imply a theistic explanation carries any value. Even if there exists some topic on which science can never speak, any understanding could potentially evade us forever – supernatural or metaphysical speculation would not automatically be correct. Uncertainty is the most legitimate position.

Lightning, earthquakes, volcanos, disease, mental illness, planetary orbits and numerous other phenomena have been historically labelled ‘supernatural’ only to later be more thoroughly and elegantly explained by science. In fact, every mystery ever demonstrably solved has had a non-supernatural explanation. To suggest that science cannot or will not explain a phenomena, and that only theism can, is hubris of the highest order.

Using ‘god’ to explain something explains nothing. God’s supposed powers and how they work are a mystery. An explanation is intended to clarify and extend knowledge. Attributing a phenomenon to the magical powers of a supernatural being does neither. Worse still, this presumption acts to prevent any deeper investigation, being little more than a form of blissful ignorance.

By using ‘god’ to fill gaps in their knowledge theists inadvertently provide a shrinking role for their god as science advances. They also predicate god’s existence on a lack of knowledge, not on any positive argument or evidence.

“I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.” – Richard Dawkins

“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.” – Charles Darwin

...yawn. You forgot to provide evidence for a secular cause. You can't so smearing people is all you have. That's your problem, I'll just point out the hypocrisy.

A person who disbelieves for poor reasons is no better off than someone who believes for poor reasons. Disbelieving in astrology because a priest tells you to is no better than believing in a god because the same priest tells you to do so.

Science observes the physical universe, makes models of how it works and then refines those models through further observation. When something interacts with the physical universe, such as through light, motion, sound, heat, mass or gravity, it becomes a natural phenomena and thus open to scientific inquiry. If it does not interact with the physical universe then it cannot be said to exist in any meaningful or perceivable way.

I didn't make those arguments and pointed out that you are too stupid to talk to.

The point is stupid, if you add up all this evidence, it suggests there is no god. God is something we made up. Here are all the logical reasons why we believe there is no god all laid out for you to study and read and soak in. If after you read all this and you still don't get it, then I guess you are exactly just as dumb as I pegged you for.

Why there is no god

Remember stupid, the existence and non-existence of your god are not equally probable outcomes. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.

 

[sealybobo]

Then realize how difficult it is to explain without science

Science says you can't claim something is real in any meaningful way without being able to provide evidence.

I never made the claim that science can prove god is real. I only pointed out that it can't say otherwise and the theist and atheist both have faith. One is honest, the other not.

Science can’t explain X, therefore god/theism.
God of the gaps. Argument from Ignorance.

Simply because you or the scientific community lack a complete understanding of something does not imply a theistic explanation carries any value. Even if there exists some topic on which science can never speak, any understanding could potentially evade us forever – supernatural or metaphysical speculation would not automatically be correct. Uncertainty is the most legitimate position.

Lightning, earthquakes, volcanos, disease, mental illness, planetary orbits and numerous other phenomena have been historically labelled ‘supernatural’ only to later be more thoroughly and elegantly explained by science. In fact, every mystery ever demonstrably solved has had a non-supernatural explanation. To suggest that science cannot or will not explain a phenomena, and that only theism can, is hubris of the highest order.

Using ‘god’ to explain something explains nothing. God’s supposed powers and how they work are a mystery. An explanation is intended to clarify and extend knowledge. Attributing a phenomenon to the magical powers of a supernatural being does neither. Worse still, this presumption acts to prevent any deeper investigation, being little more than a form of blissful ignorance.

By using ‘god’ to fill gaps in their knowledge theists inadvertently provide a shrinking role for their god as science advances. They also predicate god’s existence on a lack of knowledge, not on any positive argument or evidence.

“I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.” – Richard Dawkins

“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.” – Charles Darwin

...yawn. You forgot to provide evidence for a secular cause. You can't so smearing people is all you have. That's your problem, I'll just point out the hypocrisy.

A person who disbelieves for poor reasons is no better off than someone who believes for poor reasons. Disbelieving in astrology because a priest tells you to is no better than believing in a god because the same priest tells you to do so.

Science observes the physical universe, makes models of how it works and then refines those models through further observation. When something interacts with the physical universe, such as through light, motion, sound, heat, mass or gravity, it becomes a natural phenomena and thus open to scientific inquiry. If it does not interact with the physical universe then it cannot be said to exist in any meaningful or perceivable way.

I didn't make those arguments and pointed out that you are too stupid to talk to.

But isn't it odd that, other than your belief in this god creature, it does not exist in any meaningful or perceivable way? Same way my pink unicorn makes me feel real good when I ride it but other than that, it too doesn't exist in any meaningful or perceivable way. Doesn't make a footprint. I can't show it to you. But it does make me feel good.

 

[sealybobo]

I'm an agnostic atheist about generic god but an atheist when it comes to virgin births. I can't prove a virgin didn't get knocked up by god and I'm sorry if all the reasons I don't believe it are scientific.

I just don't believe in magic.