The origins of atheism

[AV1611VET]

Wouldn't a leech metaphor be more appropriate?

Bleck!

 

[Colter]

There has to be something to rebel against for that to be accurate.

Not really, some people rebel without a cause, and the wicked flee when no one pursues them. But your rebellion is against the belief in God by others weather you are honest about that or not.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You may not care but other people do see the truth in the quotes.

Really? Who?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Not really, some people rebel without a cause, and the wicked flee when no one pursues them. But your rebellion is against the belief in God by others weather you are honest about that or not.

Do you "rebel" against homeopathy?

 

[Colter]

Do you "rebel" against homeopathy?

No, gay marriage is fine with me.

 

[AV1611VET]

lol - c'mon now.

Belief in a method isn't the same as the belief in a "fact".

The scientific method basically says "Look around, see what's happening. Form a hypothesis to explain it. Test it. Does it work? You might be right. Keep testing, forever. If, however, the model ceases to work, then the hypothesis is wrong. Try again."

Belief that this approach is a solid way to address matters is not the same thing as the belief that "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth".

That's fine with me.

But when the scientific method sticks its trident into the Scriptures, it's time to draw the line.

Let me make that quote again:

Scientism is belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach, and the view that empirical science constitutes the most "authoritative" worldview or the most valuable part of human learning - to the exclusion of other viewpoints.

The first part of that:

Scientism is belief in the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach.

... is okey-dokey with me -- (despite the fact that I think the SM is a joke).

But it doesn't stop there.

It goes on to say:

Empirical science constitutes the most "authoritative" worldview.

And that's where it sets itself up above the Scriptures and becomes its own religion.*

* I define religion this way:

Just as weight occurs when gravity is resisted, religion occurs when the Bible is resisted.

Scientism, in my opinion, with be the religion of the Antichrist when he shows up.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

...how more irrational can it get?

This thread? Depends on how long certain posters keep responding...

I'm beginning to think there's a concerted effort to eliminate the atheists from this board by continually posing inane nonsense, goading the atheists until they post things that get them banned.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, it's just factually wrong.

Was it "factually wrong" in 2003 that we only had eight planets?

(Please answer this.)

 

[Ana the Ist]

Not really, some people rebel without a cause, and the wicked flee when no one pursues them. But your rebellion is against the belief in God by others weather you are honest about that or not.

Oh gee...thanks for pointing out what I believe lol. Allow me to do the same...

You're in constant rebellion against those who believe in vampires...whether you believe it or not. Now, I know that may sound really really dumb to you...because you're probably thinking "I don't believe in vampires, how could I rebel against something I don't believe exists?".

However, we both know that there are those who believe in vampires and it's your denial of them and their truths that has led you to your rebellion.

Try not to think too much about how ridiculous this all sounds or you might just realize what you've said to me.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm beginning to think there's a concerted effort to eliminate the atheists from this board by continually posing inane nonsense, goading the atheists until they post things that get them banned.

Then stop looking at it as "inane nonsense" and problem solved.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You'd like that, wouldn't you?

No. What I would like, is that you guys would stop being juvenile and recognise what science really is, instead of some kind of "plot by the devil" or "conspiracy" or "religion" whatever other nonsensical opinion you have about it.

You just can't understand how people can rail against science and benefit from it at the same time, can you?

I get it. It's just incredibly hypocritical.

I'm totally against letting cows roam the streets -- for any reason.
Yet I'll take a cheeseburger and milkshake any day of the week.

Ok. No idea how this relates to the point at hand, but ok.

 

[DogmaHunter]

He'd rather just admit to not know and leave it at that, which means he has no desire to find the actual truth,

That doesn't follow at all, nore did I ever say that I have no desire to find truth.
Distorting. Again. You've done this every post for the last eleventy pages.

otherwise he'd agree that assuming possible truths is a reasonable thing to do and in fact the only way to make progress.

Simply assuming things for no reason is not a pathway to truth.

 

[AV1611VET]

No. What I would like, is that you guys would stop being juvenile and recognise what science really is,

Science is the observation and manipulation of God's creation to facilitate our preservation and comfort.

How's that for juvenile?

 

[DogmaHunter]

This thread? Depends on how long certain posters keep responding...

I'm beginning to think there's a concerted effort to eliminate the atheists from this board by continually posing inane nonsense, goading the atheists until they post things that get them banned.

You may be unto something.

I must admit that it crossed my mind as well.
The only reason I continue is because I am in "killing time" mode at the moment.

Plus, I'm considering it a challenge as well to see how long I can go on before exploding and getting banned

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Then stop looking at it as "inane nonsense" and problem solved.

While that's good advice, it's soooooo hard not to look.

 

[AV1611VET]

While that's good advice, it's soooooo hard not to look.

One man's basic doctrine is another man's inane nonsense, isn't it?

Welcome to Planet Earth, where everyone is a potential entertainer.

 

[Chriliman]

Me- "If we observe reality and ask questions without the intent of finding truth, then our questions become meaningless. Your questions are meaningless if you're willing to accept that the truth can never be known."

I'm going to stop entertaining your strawmen and distortions of my statements.

I never once said anything remotely like this.

Really DogmaHunter? What is this then?

If it is unknowable, that's fine. We'll still pick up plenty of knowledge in our quest to answer those questions. We just won't be able to cross the ultimate finish line.


I don't have a problem with that, eventhough I would prefer a race that is finishable.

If you tell me you're not willing to accept that the truth is unknowable, then you're lying straight through your teeth. I've clearly pointed out how your being dishonest, please fess up.

Deep down we all want to know the truth and the best way to really figure out the truth is to ask honest questions and assume rational possibilities.

 

[Colter]

Oh gee...thanks for pointing out what I believe lol. Allow me to do the same...

You're in constant rebellion against those who believe in vampires...whether you believe it or not. Now, I know that may sound really really dumb to you...because you're probably thinking "I don't believe in vampires, how could I rebel against something I don't believe exists?".

However, we both know that there are those who believe in vampires and it's your denial of them and their truths that has led you to your rebellion.

Try not to think too much about how ridiculous this all sounds or you might just realize what you've said to me.

If I joined a pro vampire forum and argued against their faith in vampires then you would have a point.

 

[Ana the Ist]

If I joined a pro vampire forum and argued against their faith in vampires then you would have a point.

I'm not arguing against anyone's faith. I'm entirely sure that you have it...as well as anyone else who claims to.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Me- "If we observe reality and ask questions without the intent of finding truth, then our questions become meaningless. Your questions are meaningless if you're willing to accept that the truth can never be known."





Really DogmaHunter? What is this then?




If you tell me you're not willing to accept that the truth is unknowable, then you're lying straight through your teeth. I've clearly pointed out how your being dishonest, please fess up.

Deep down we all want to know the truth and the best way to really figure out the truth is to assume rational possibilities and ask honest questions.

I never claimed to accept that the truth is unknowable or knowable.

In fact, I have been pointing out post after post after post that I do not know and will not commit/assume/believe one way or the other because I do not know.

That doesn't mean that we can't ask the question and try to answer it.
However, it does mean that there is a possibility that some questions will never be answered - if it turns out those things are unknowable.

We won't know unless we try.

None of this requires assumptions, beliefs or commitments based on ignorance.

Consider a murder investigation.
They do not assume or believe that they will solve it. They try to solve it, but are also fully aware that they might not be able to. If the murderer successfully erased all traces and evidence and has a watertight alibi - it will not be solvable.

But investigators will still try. Fully realising that they might not be successfull.


Get it now?

(my money is on "no").