Atheism has less tolerance than theism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-09-2014, 06:23 AM
RE: Atheism has less tolerance than theism
Yes I am intolerant of bwastardizing science, either theistic attempts or si fi woo. I am also intolerant of religious bigotry and sexism. No I do not give one fuck what you think.

THAT is strictly in terms of valuing questioning and criticizing claims. YOU DO HAVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE ANY CLAIM YOU WANT, and I have the right to call it bullshit.

Do not think of it as hate of you personally,

Claimant "The Yankees won the SuperBowl"
Me, "No, the Yankees play baseball"
Claimant "Why wont you let me believe they won the SuperBowl?"
Me, "Be cause it isn't true, no matter how much you want it to be true"
Claimant, "YOU HATE ME"
Me, "No I do not hate you I just hate the fact you keep saying stupid shit"

Poetry by Brian37(poems by an atheist) Also on Facebook as BrianJames Rational Poet and Twitter Brianrrs37
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Brian37's post
02-09-2014, 06:24 AM
RE: Atheism has less tolerance than theism
(02-09-2014 06:21 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  No one in science at that level is this stupid. Can you spell "wanna be" ?

Uh... I have a colleague in Engineering Physics who's a YEC. Just saying.

The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-09-2014, 06:58 AM
RE: Atheism has less tolerance than theism
(01-09-2014 05:09 PM)OurFather Wrote:  I'm a student studying theoretical physics...

... i find it hard to believe that it was a spontaneous hydrogen atom that came into existence who is our god.

I find it hard to believe you are a senior in theoretical physics if this is the way you see the big bang.

If you ARE interested in alternatives, consider looking into m-theory, which you have certainly covered, being in theoretical physics and all.

The idea that an advanced civilization built the universe is likely possible. I don't know the probability of it, but so far, our observations don't need something like that to be explained.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-09-2014, 08:32 AM
RE: Atheism has less tolerance than theism
Here's the real kicker - You're a closet troll with a secret ( not very secretive) agenda. But yeah, you'll have atheists with little tolerance just as you'll find theists with little tolerance. I'm an introvert that doesn't tend to like many people, and just because I'm in an atheist community doesn't mean I automatically agree and like all within the community. I'm not tolerant of many people, but at least I don't have to deal with atheists rubbing superstitious bullshit in my face.

A wise person makes their own decisions; an ignorant one follows public opinion.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-09-2014, 08:32 AM
RE: Atheism has less tolerance than theism
(01-09-2014 05:09 PM)OurFather Wrote:  Here's the problem I have with fellow colleagues. They have no tolerance for anyone that goes against an establish theory whether its mathematics or physics. If you so much even say that the speed of light can be broken, you can expect backlash.

But here's the kicker, I'm a closet-theist in an organization that only lets in atheists. It's like a gay coming out in modern times as a comparison. But I dare not every mention to anyone that I believe in 'intelligent design' and that humanity will scientifically prove it.

Your thread title appears to be misleading. It might more accurately read:

A specific subset of atheists is very intolerant

or

I like applying generalizations about a narrow subset to the larger group, as a whole


(01-09-2014 05:09 PM)OurFather Wrote:  Personally I think the universe was created by an advanced civilization, and the big bang is a big science experiment to them. Their creators were also other enlightened entities. We the humans will become gods one day to other primitive civilizations, one day creating their big bang. The question is 'who/what was the original source?", and no i find it hard to believe that it was a spontaneous hydrogen atom that came into existence who is our god.

Do you have any non-presuppositional evidence to support this?


(01-09-2014 05:22 PM)OurFather Wrote:  "i find it hard to believe" can be replace with "I cannot find any scientific reason" why intelligent design is not possible.

Do you have any non-presuppositional evidence to support to support your beliefs? If you did, I don't see why you'd be shunned by other scientists. That's kind of the whole point of science: to learn things based on new evidence.


(01-09-2014 05:22 PM)OurFather Wrote:  I feel I'm an atheist, but not a 21st century type of atheist. Today to be an atheist one has to believe that humans have no soul, yet they dont explain that you cant destroy energy that engulfs the body.

Actually, atheists simply don't believe in any gods. You can be an atheist and believe in leprechauns, souls, ghosts, and Obama-gay-Kenyan-born-Muslim-communist conspiracy theories. You're over-defining the term.


(01-09-2014 05:22 PM)OurFather Wrote:  So here's what I believe in and what 22nd century atheists will likely believe in:
1. There is no GOD, but there are gods who created this universe and their universe and so forth.
2. All intelligent species in this universe have a soul, the intelligent design that created this dimension made it so so we can become gods one day.
3. Spirituality is more advanced than Science. One day both will come together as one. The theists and the atheists will agree on middle ground.

Again, do you have any non-presuppositional evidence to support what you're saying?

I have no idea how you can even begin to assert your third point. It's some sort of happy-feeling thing people can say to make themselves appear more wise than they are, but it doesn't even mean anything. It's no more useful than me saying "wargarble is more advanced than science". What does that even mean, and how can people use it to make useful predictions about things?

If the rubric you use to conceptualize your world is less reliable than flipping a coin when making decisions, of what use is that rubric?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-09-2014, 08:43 AM
RE: Atheism has less tolerance than theism
(01-09-2014 05:09 PM)OurFather Wrote:  I'm a student studying theoretical physics.

Here's the problem I have with fellow colleagues. They have no tolerance for anyone that goes against an establish theory whether its mathematics or physics. If you so much even say that the speed of light can be broken, you can expect backlash.

But here's the kicker, I'm a closet-theist in an organization that only lets in atheists. It's like a gay coming out in modern times as a comparison. But I dare not every mention to anyone that I believe in 'intelligent design' and that humanity will scientifically prove it.

I know a few other upcoming students who feel like Michaelango vs the Vatican in centuries ago. Today it is the atheist mainstream media who demonizes any physicist who so much even thinks intelligent design is possible.

Personally I think the universe was created by an advanced civilization, and the big bang is a big science experiment to them. Their creators were also other enlightened entities. We the humans will become gods one day to other primitive civilizations, one day creating their big bang. The question is 'who/what was the original source?", and no i find it hard to believe that it was a spontaneous hydrogen atom that came into existence who is our god.

I'm not surprised they take the piss,if you believe all that... Not because it's impossible, stupid or unlikely, but because you believe it with absolutely zero evidence.

[img]

via GIPHY

[/img]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-09-2014, 08:46 AM
RE: Atheism has less tolerance than theism
(01-09-2014 05:09 PM)OurFather Wrote:  I'm a student studying theoretical physics.

Here's the problem I have with fellow colleagues. They have no tolerance for anyone that goes against an establish theory whether its mathematics or physics. If you so much even say that the speed of light can be broken, you can expect backlash.

But here's the kicker, I'm a closet-theist in an organization that only lets in atheists. It's like a gay coming out in modern times as a comparison. But I dare not every mention to anyone that I believe in 'intelligent design' and that humanity will scientifically prove it.

I know a few other upcoming students who feel like Michaelango vs the Vatican in centuries ago. Today it is the atheist mainstream media who demonizes any physicist who so much even thinks intelligent design is possible.

Personally I think the universe was created by an advanced civilization, and the big bang is a big science experiment to them. Their creators were also other enlightened entities. We the humans will become gods one day to other primitive civilizations, one day creating their big bang. The question is 'who/what was the original source?", and no i find it hard to believe that it was a spontaneous hydrogen atom that came into existence who is our god.

"Here's the problem I have with fellow colleagues. They have no tolerance for anyone that goes against an establish theory whether its mathematics or physics. If you so much even say that the speed of light can be broken, you can expect backlash."

There is a difference from quibbling over things that are plausible and believing that as a new student of physics that you have stumbled upon something that the world's foremost researchers in the field have not yet figured out (especially if it relies upon conjecture and presents mathematical impossibilities. Keep in mind that while you may not know of arguments that explicitly disprove what you may be proposing, the people who have studied this for a lifetime might.)

"But here's the kicker, I'm a closet-theist in an organization that only lets in atheists. It's like a gay coming out in modern times as a comparison. But I dare not every mention to anyone that I believe in 'intelligent design' and that humanity will scientifically prove it."

Here is a kicker, I bet you are not the only theist in the field of physics.

What organization only accepts atheists? (I am assuming by "organization" you mean a university, or do you mean theoretical physics requires people be atheist before studying it?)

A gay coming out is the equivalent of a theistic physicist? So, you think that if you let your professors know that you are a theist, that you may be in danger of being beaten or that you will have some of your social rights removed? You should drop the persecution complex.

On the last bit, that you not only believe in intelligent design (which is demonstrably false) but that you believe humanity will prove it, that last bit is the most damning. This seems to imply that you have faith that intelligent design will be upheld, there is nothing scientific about that belief. So yes, if you profess that you are almost certainly going to be criticized for saying something so demonstrably stupid and unscientific.

"I know a few other upcoming students who feel like Michaelango vs the Vatican in centuries ago. Today it is the atheist mainstream media who demonizes any physicist who so much even thinks intelligent design is possible."

More persecution complex. I am a geologist and I share an office with 3 other people, at least 2 of whom are theists. Want to bet that they don't get mocked for their religious opinion within the scientific community?

"Personally I think the universe was created by an advanced civilization, and the big bang is a big science experiment to them. Their creators were also other enlightened entities. We the humans will become gods one day to other primitive civilizations, one day creating their big bang. The question is 'who/what was the original source?", and no i find it hard to believe that it was a spontaneous hydrogen atom that came into existence who is our god."

If this is what you are afraid of telling your professors for fear of being mocked, then yes...you should be. This is simply stupid. This is equatable to first year students in college submitting papers for their writing comps classes that use phrases to try and make themselves sound intelligent (such as "Since the beginning of time...") but make themselves sound like twits.

None of what you said is scientific in any sense. It is indistinguishable from fantasy. You could take a creative writing class and explore this in an assignment, but you're saying something that is laughably absurd when it comes to any field of science.


Also, I don't know how this makes you a theist exactly. Do you believe in any religion or a heaven or hell?

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-09-2014, 06:56 PM
RE: Atheism has less tolerance than theism
(01-09-2014 07:36 PM)Baruch Wrote:  
(01-09-2014 05:09 PM)OurFather Wrote:  I'm a student studying theoretical physics.

Here's the problem I have with fellow colleagues. They have no tolerance for anyone that goes against an establish theory whether its mathematics or physics. If you so much even say that the speed of light can be broken, you can expect backlash.

But here's the kicker, I'm a closet-theist in an organization that only lets in atheists. It's like a gay coming out in modern times as a comparison. But I dare not every mention to anyone that I believe in 'intelligent design' and that humanity will scientifically prove it.

I know a few other upcoming students who feel like Michaelango vs the Vatican in centuries ago. Today it is the atheist mainstream media who demonizes any physicist who so much even thinks intelligent design is possible.

Personally I think the universe was created by an advanced civilization, and the big bang is a big science experiment to them. Their creators were also other enlightened entities. We the humans will become gods one day to other primitive civilizations, one day creating their big bang. The question is 'who/what was the original source?", and no i find it hard to believe that it was a spontaneous hydrogen atom that came into existence who is our god.

The problem is your subject is theoretical physics & not biology.
Study biology further and you will see there is no intelligent design.
I used to be a teacher of ID following the likes of Michael Behe, Rabbi Schroeder & Stephen C. Meyer for a few years until I started to study evolution properly and recognized all the failed design. 99% of species extinct, horrific congenital mutilations, children dying every 45 seconds from Malaria, staggeringly torturous diseases - all point to unintelligent design.

Yes, there are pretty butterflies, cute babies and beautiful women which may bring a spark of "wow there must be intelligent design" - but this intuition is deeply mistaken. The collateral damage caused by 4 Billion years of evolution is utterly shocking even though some of the 'survivors' do look designed, after all they are the refined survivors at the expense of the other 99% extinctions. Often there are also signs of suboptimal design even if not out right unintelligent.

So we have a mixture of unintelligent design[UD], suboptimal design [SD] and appearance of intelligent design [ID]- what is the best explanation ?


The ID argument runs as follows:
Premise 1. Living things are too well-designed to have originated by chance.
Premise 2.Therefore, life must have been created by an intelligent creator.
Premise 3. This creator is God.

Premise 1 - is false. How can you say that a congenital mutilation such as Harlequins Ichtheosis is "too well designed to originate by chance ?
see:
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=harleq...36&bih=710
- just as one of many examples ?
- How many counter examples are required to refute premise 1 ? I can be here all night and give counter examples to intelligent design ?

I my self am embarrassed and shameful for teaching intelligent design 15 years ago because subsequently I became a haematologist specialist and the very examples of ID given by Behe (wrote "Darwins black box" and key ID preacher) lead to some of the worst medical catastrophes imaginable !!!
ID talks about "the miracle of blood clotting, the intelligence of blood carrying oxygen to organs etc) However the unintelligence of the design are obvious - we have multiple diseases JUST relating to haematology due to the screwed up design mechanisms involved:

Thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (TTP),
essential thrombocythemia
Polycythemia ruba vera
Dozens of cancers just related to blood
(ALL, AML, APML, CLL, Myeloma's, Lymphoma's NHL/SLL/HL....,CML...)
Idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP)
Dozens of types of haemophelia
Sickle cell and dozens of other genetic mistakes (various thalassemia's)
erythroblastopenia's
Different types of autoimmune hemolytic anemia's
Hemoglobinopathies
Hereditary pyropoikilocytosis (HPP)
Triosephosphate isomerase deficiency
Waldenström's macroglobulinaemia
Disseminated intravascular coagulation disorders
A whole range of hypogammaglobulinemia's
Wiskott-Aldrich syndrome

...............and I have barely touched the surface - just for screwed up blood disorders.

....and you call this "intelligent design" ??????????
....and you wonder why Intelligent design is ridiculed ?

it is self evident that premise 1 is false. There is massive evidence to support premise 1 for being utterly false.
Premise 1. Living things are too well-designed to have originated by chance

??? too well designed - there are too many flaws leading to too many barbaric torturous diseases due to suboptimal design.

So why do you stick to intelligent design ?


Fine tuning of the universe ?
We live on a pale blue rock in the midst of a 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999​9999999999% uninhabitable universe.
Our pale blue rock is fragile and many parts are uninhabitable.
...and even if it is a remarkable improbability that life would evolve to the diversity that exists today - there is a 100% certainty that the fine tuning is so imperfect that ALL life on our planet will be extinct in a few Billion years which is a tiny fraction of time from the perspective of the life of stars & galaxies. (seems like a long time to us humans but we have only been around for 100,000 years) - you should know this as a theoretical physicist.
...Entropy will eventually destroy everything in our region of the universe and perhaps the cycle just goes round in circles forever or keeps expanding or bubbling new universes forever - so much for fine tuning.
The law of conservation of energy does give us the impression energy cannot be destroyed or created ex-Nihilo so ultimately there is neither beginning nor ending - it is just energy changing forms forever.

I noticed our father has not even engaged in defending intelligent design or anything in this post I wrote ?
I wonder why ?

A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence -
David Hume


[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRhOs7rUrS5bRKvWS7clR7...gNs5ZwpVef]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-09-2014, 07:46 PM
RE: Atheism has less tolerance than theism
(01-09-2014 05:30 PM)OurFather Wrote:  Thank our mortal gods (annunaki) for the internet, because if my professors ever found out that what that what I've been taught for the past 8yrs is propaganda lies , i'd be kicked out. Yet I still get high marks, likely because I dwell deeper into each subject more than the average student would.

So here's what I believe in and what 22nd century atheists will likely believe in:
1. There is no GOD, but there are gods who created this universe and their universe and so forth.
2. All intelligent species in this universe have a soul, the intelligent design that created this dimension made it so so we can become gods one day.
3. Spirituality is more advanced than Science. One day both will come together as one. The theists and the atheists will agree on middle ground.

In answer to your predictions.

1) Pfffffffft.
2) Hahahahaah. That's a real knee slapper! Hahahaha
3) Hahahaha! Fat chance.

[Image: Laughter-1.jpg]

Shakespeare's Comedy of Errors.... on Donald J. Trump:

He is deformed, crooked, old, and sere,
Ill-fac’d, worse bodied, shapeless every where;
Vicious, ungentle, foolish, blunt, unkind,
Stigmatical in making, worse in mind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-09-2014, 07:53 PM (This post was last modified: 02-09-2014 08:03 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Atheism has less tolerance than theism
(02-09-2014 06:56 PM)Baruch Wrote:  I noticed our father has not even engaged in defending intelligent design or anything in this post I wrote ?
I wonder why ?

Drive-by troll.

Our Father which art in Heaven,



Got a woodie. ... Don't judge me. Pretty sure if Mahelia ever got me in her grip she could make Girly see God.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: