New To Forum
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-05-2015, 06:25 AM
RE: New To Forum
(18-05-2015 05:49 AM)objectivetheist Wrote:  
(17-05-2015 10:06 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  By putting the word facts in quote marks in the manner you have, you are showing your religious bias (betraying your moniker) and it wreaks of sarcasm.

When you dip your hand in water and it becomes wet, are you blindly allegiant to Noah Webster for giving you a succinct word to describe how your hand feels? Or is your hand wet? It's a fact that the water makes your hand wet and you're not blindly believing it because the evidence is your wet hand. You verified your hand was wet by feeling it, by drying it off with a towel and seeing the transference of the water molecules from your hand to the towel. Others see you do it and tell you your hand is wet because they, too, experienced what it was like to dip their hands into water. Time after time when we see water, recognize it as such and dip our hands in it, we know for a fact it will become wet. If someone would come by and say water isn't wet, we would require proof and it would have to be tested and reviewed by peers and proved to in fact not be wet.

When Darwin and Wallace arrived at the same conclusions pertaining to evolution, it was so significant because two separate, unfamiliar people studied evidence and arrived at the same conclusion. And this conclusion has been tested and retested, refined and improved millions of times. It's what is known as the scientific method. If they were full of shit, someone would be able to prove the theory wrong. After a couple of centuries, surely one bone or one fossil would be found in the wrong layer of the geological column, right? Nope. Nada. Zilch. And why? Because it's fact. Not "fact."

You are more than welcome to get a shovel and dig your way to the Earth's core to try to find one for yourself. Are we blindly following these scientists? No, we trust the scientific method because it works (bitches). Actual scientists are watchdogs, making sure there is no pseudoscience being passed off as true science. They aren't secret handshake frat boys looking to pull the wool over the eyes of the world. Their evidence is transparent for the world to double check, and any one of your clergy or religious leaders are also more than welcome to try to refute ANY piece of evidence in this theory.

But guess what, none of you will, because it's much easier for you to stick your head in the sand than a shovel.

Evolution is fact. And your earlier remark about it shattering the bible would seem to be true on the outside, but any real religious scholar would know the Catholics have accepted evolution for decades, they just have a whole other level of bullshit they use to get around it so they can sleep at night.

No, the bible doesn't need evolution to defeat it; common sense does that quite nicely.

Now, about that "objective" part of your moniker ... Oops, did I just use quote marks?

I don't blind follow any clergy. Just for your information.

Did I suggest you did?

Check out my now-defunct atheism blog. It's just a blog, no ads, no revenue, no gods.
----
Atheism promotes critical thinking; theism promotes hypocritical thinking. -- Me
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-05-2015, 06:54 AM
RE: New To Forum
(18-05-2015 05:32 AM)objectivetheist Wrote:  Relativity, uncertainty and math of Dirac being illogical is how religious people debate that trinity is hard to comprehend.

I'm a strong believer in logic. However time relativity is not illogical.

But those things (relativity, uncertainty, Dirac's math) are objectively verifiable and falsifiable, the existence or nature of the Trinity is not.

Drinking Beverage

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-05-2015, 07:28 AM
RE: New To Forum
(17-05-2015 05:22 PM)objectivetheist Wrote:  As far as I understand evolution has three facets: 1 random mutation 2 natural selection 3 common descent

The third one is the most problematic for a theist.

As for random mutation and natural selection, they do not affect belief in a Creator. Common descent is problematic because it contradicts the story of the creation of Adam. Just a point.

Gee, facts contradicting a myth? Consider

Who'd a' thunk it?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
18-05-2015, 07:30 AM
RE: New To Forum
(17-05-2015 05:48 PM)objectivetheist Wrote:  
(17-05-2015 05:40 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Dawkins is an Evolutionary Biologist. It's your opinion that Evolution can be used as a "bedrock" for atheism. There are many religious people who don't even try to deny Evolution. As I said above, they are separate subjects. The fact that some religionists tend to conflate them is neither here nor there. The concpet of a god, (especially the god of the Bible) is ludicrous all on it's own, for entirely separate reasons. Evolution can be a threat to religion, but not necessarily so. It IS a threat to Fundamentalism. What Dawkins says or does is of no interest to most atheists. Obviously it is of GREAT concern to you. I think for myself.

So the main form of debate should revolve around philosophical questions and natural theology? From amongst those theological questions is the implications of evolution on religious texts..

However it is possible for a person to remain a theis and not follow the Bible.

No. The debate should revolve around evidence. Theology is a load of crap without evidence.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
18-05-2015, 07:36 AM
RE: New To Forum
(17-05-2015 07:26 PM)objectivetheist Wrote:  My original question remains: is verification of scientific 'facts' based upon a blind allegiance to authority? Not every lay man can verify science so his rejection of faith based on evolution is in fact akin to faiths that believe blind following a clergy.

'Scientific facts' and evidence are available to anyone and everyone - they do not depend on authority.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
18-05-2015, 07:46 AM
RE: New To Forum
(18-05-2015 07:30 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(17-05-2015 05:48 PM)objectivetheist Wrote:  So the main form of debate should revolve around philosophical questions and natural theology? From amongst those theological questions is the implications of evolution on religious texts..

However it is possible for a person to remain a theis and not follow the Bible.

No. The debate should revolve around evidence. Theology is a load of crap without evidence.

I love this quote from freeatheism.org:

"Atheism--Because not once has the answer turned out to be magic. Ever."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like jennybee's post
18-05-2015, 07:46 AM
New To Forum
If I remember correctly, Ashari value revelation over reason. That was one of the issues between Ashari and Mutazila.

If I'm wrong please enlighten me.

I'm not sure how you can be objective like that.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-05-2015, 07:47 AM
RE: New To Forum
(18-05-2015 06:11 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(18-05-2015 05:54 AM)objectivetheist Wrote:  Just a thought: why do so many people swear and insult on here when discussing?

'Cos we fucking feel like it, ya pommy bastard Wink

You and your fuckin' potty mouth Tongue
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes jennybee's post
18-05-2015, 07:53 AM
RE: New To Forum
(18-05-2015 06:03 AM)objectivetheist Wrote:  Quote: So... to indicate that only 'Science' is some how of some inestimable measure as opposed to other fields is wrong. End of quote

Correction: I was not referring to science but just evolution. But as I said I will read the books recommended and get back to you.

Um... evolution is science. (As in... heck, every one knows what I'm meaning, right? The ideas about evolution have come about using the scientific method etc.)

Though, if you can point out how evolution is bad science, please go right ahead.

Smile

Much cheers to all.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-05-2015, 08:31 AM (This post was last modified: 18-05-2015 01:18 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: New To Forum
(18-05-2015 05:32 AM)objectivetheist Wrote:  Relativity, uncertainty and math of Dirac being illogical is how religious people debate that trinity is hard to comprehend.

I'm a strong believer in logic. However time relativity is not illogical.

Really ? I'm a PhD candidate in a Biblical Studies program, and I NEVER once heard that from religious people. You keep saying "theologians this and theologians that". You seem to actually know almost nothing about what theologians actually say or do, (especially your attempt to make supposed claims by scientists appear to be equivalent to what you claim theologians say. You really don't know what they say or how they talk about anything. You also cannot demonstrate I was quoting Augustine or Aquinas.
The fact that no one accepted Relativity until it was demonstrated, (that there is no absolute reference point in space-time is not "logical"). Is it logical that a three year old who goes into space, goes very very fast, and returns, arrives back to find the very same people it left much much older than it is ? No. AND NOT ONE person predicted this phenomenon FROM LOGIC ALONE, until Einstein's theory predicted it, (and NOT from Logic). You can "believe" in the tooth fairy or logic or the gods all you want. Without evidence they are all worthless. As Dr. Carroll pointed out (in the video you never watched) there are all kinds of logical systems that are totally consistent and correct "logically", but do not "obtain" in reality. Logic alone is not sufficient. It's very easy to demonstrate.

Something can "contain truth" (ie the Bible *could* be true) as a myth in the classical sense and be historiacally not at all true. Were the plays of Euripides "true". No. They were mythology. Did they contain "truth" ? Yes. In that sense the Bible *could* contain elements of *truth* yet be entirely false historically. So your childish simplistic questions you posed so far here are at the level of a child, (which is why I asked about your age).

BTW, define "eternal". In doing so use NO WORD or concept that invokes space-time. As far as we know right now, space-time is a property of this universe only. If you do, and your god NEEDS time to exists "eternally" then you have explained nothing with your god(s). Define "exists" also, using no concept that invokes time.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Bucky Ball's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: