Chaos theory contains God of Theism

[dgiharris]

Is there a book of atheism that all atheist adhere to? MOST POPULAR IS BIBLE. THEISTS READ THERE, THAT GOD IS INFINITELY GOOD, SO HE MUST EXISTS, ATHEISTS READ THERE, THAT GOD IS INFINITELY EVIL (FIGHTS THE HOMOSEXUALISM, ABORTS, ADULTERY, ATHEISM, ETC., AND SACRIFIED OWN SON) SO HE MUST NOT EXIST. THE BIBLE GIVES THE ATHEISTS THE CONFIDENCE IN ATHEISM.
Are there are set of principles they all adhere to? YES, THERE IS: 1) TO SAY, THAT THEIR GOD IN NON-EXISTENT, 2) NOT TO PRAY, NOT TO GO TO CHURCH, NOT TO REPENT.
Is their a hierarchy and rank they adhere to among each other? MOST POPULAR ATHEISTS ARE RICHARD DAWKINS AND STEVEN HAWKING......

I apologize and I do not mean to insult you but I know no other way to say the following...

You literally have no idea what you are talking about. In your mind, you have a narrow viewpoint and your brain is intent on warping reality such that it fits your viewpoint.

Ironically, if you had a firm understanding of science and the scientific method and basic mathematics (applied to argumentative thought) you'd easily see the logical fallacies and thought mistakes you are making in your argument.

If I were to apply the logic of your argument, then people who "don't" believe in XYZ automatically belong to their own religion that doesn't believe in XYZ???

The notion that Atheists think God is infinitely evil is so absurd I don't know where to begin. Atheists simply don't believe in God. That is it, that is all,.

as far as atheist ranking goes. I can admit to walking into that one. There are plenty of scholars who are atheists and as such could have "ranking". But what I meant is that an atheist can't order another atheist around based on ranking. Richard Dawkins isn't given some special atheist status that compels other Atheists to give him money or to follow a set of rules Dawkins came up with.

In any event, there is no point arguing anymore. You are using a weird form of irrational deductions and circular reference and are caught in a loop of cognitive dissonance.

 

[Chesterton]

I feel like "all your forum are belong to us".

 

[joinfree]

.......
If I were to apply the logic of your argument, then people who "don't" believe in XYZ automatically belong to their own religion that doesn't believe in XYZ???
If XYZ is the collecting stamps, then refusal of it is just a lifestyle choice. But if XYZ is our beloved Lord Jesus, then denial of Him relates to Religion, not to lifestyle.
.......
In any event, there is no point arguing anymore. You are using a weird form of irrational deductions and circular reference and are caught in a loop of cognitive dissonance.
I wrote many papers in Physical Review E, the paper in European Physical Journal B, many papers in the Orthodox Christian World, so your trolling is amusing.

 

[Ophiolite]

The faith is faithfulness to KNOWLEDGE, so the Dogmas are scientifically PROVEN KNOWLEDGE. Science is quest for knowledge, not a method.

There are two fundamental errors here:
1. Science is not in the business of proving anything, hence there is no scientifically proven knowledge.
2. While science is, indeed, a quest for knowledge, this quest is carried out according to a method, or suite of methods, collectively called the scientific method.

Your egregious misunderstanding of these two basic points indicates that you have had no scientific training, or that such training was sub-standard, or that you failed to understand it. As such this renders any observations you make about science valueless. I recommend ceasing such observations until such time as you have obtained the necessary grounding in science and the scientific method.

 

[joinfree]

Please read: Poe's Law or how well Atheism is organized

 

[joinfree]

There are two fundamental errors here:
1. Science is not in the business of proving anything, hence there is no scientifically proven knowledge.
Are trigonometry theorems not proven? Is the Universe expansion not proven? Are Gravity Laws not proven to exists?
2. While science is, indeed, a quest for knowledge, this quest is carried out according to a method, or suite of methods, collectively called the scientific method.
Are the methods of Physics proven to be only ones, that are valid to find knowledge?
Your egregious misunderstanding of these two basic points indicates that you have had no scientific training, or that such training was sub-standard, or that you failed to understand it. As such this renders any observations you make about science valueless. I recommend ceasing such observations until such time as you have obtained the necessary grounding in science and the scientific method. I have top scientific CV, many top publications, the gold medal, the cum laude, the Prizes, the Grants, etc.

 

[HitchSlap]

Do you understand why the concept of ‘proving something’ is not useful in science?

But strictly as a colloquialism, totally.

 

[morse86]

Do you understand why the concept of ‘proving something’ is not useful in science?

But strictly as a colloquialism, totally.

Then you don't have science, you have $cience. If you can't prove it, you have theoretical garbage. When mathematics disconnected from observable reality, it is absolute garbage and you have no business in science. You should change/drop your hypothesis instead of trying to adapt it into a hypothe$is to fit your misinterpreted data.

 

[Ophiolite]

Then you don't have science, you have $cience. If you can't prove it, you have theoretical garbage. When mathematics disconnected from observable reality, it is absolute garbage and you have no business in science. You should change/drop your hypothesis instead of trying to adapt it into a hypothe$is to fit your misinterpreted data.

I do admire your consistency. In almost every one of your posts you convince me anew that you do not understand science. You are free to use words as you wish, but you should not expect anyone to seriously entertain your flawed and fanciful definitions. Perhaps things will become clearer for you once you pass puberty.

 

[morse86]

1828 dictionary of the meaning of science:

In a general sense, knowledge, or certain knowledge; the comprehension or understanding of truth or facts by the mind. The science of God must be perfect.

2. In philosophy, a collection of the general principles or leading truths relating to any subject. Pure science as the mathematics, is built on self-evident truths; but the term science is also applied to other subjects founded on generally acknowledged truths, as metaphysics; or on experiment and observation, as chimistry and natural philosophy; or even to an assemblage of the general principles of an art, as the science of agriculture; the science of navigation. Arts relate to practice, as painting and sculpture.

You can continue to parrot the status quo $cience but don't call it science. Look up the definition of science in any old dictionary.


Bible believers don't file their beliefs under science, they file it under religion. You should also file your anti-critical thinking $cience beliefs under religion and not science. We need observable, repeatable results.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

1828 dictionary of the meaning of science

1828? Really? You couldn't find anything more up to date.

 

[joinfree]

1828? Really? You couldn't find anything more up to date.

Is Shakespeare's place in trash can?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Is Shakespeare's place in trash can?

No, but using a definition from two centuries ago when there are perfectly good modern dictionaries to use is a bit... stupid.

 

[joinfree]

No, but using a definition from two centuries ago when there are perfectly good modern dictionaries to use is a bit... stupid.

Why the definition of Science has been changed? Isn't it a bit stupid not to know why, is it?

 

[Shemjaza]

Is Shakespeare's place in trash can?

No, but if you wrote in Shakespearian English in the news paper, people wouldn't have a clue what you were saying.

 

[Shemjaza]

Why the definition of Science has been changed? Isn't it a bit stupid not to know why, is it?

because the word has more refined and useful modern definitions.

It's like insisting that the little maths machine in my pocket can't be called a "calculator", because calculator is the job title for the young woman with an abacus and a note pad.

 

[Shemjaza]

Whenever people stop defending the details and truth of their own statements to just use semantics and word play, it's a pretty bad sign for their argument.

 

[joinfree]

because the word has more refined and useful modern definitions. ...

How come this change in dictionaries:
year 1828: theology is Science,
year 2018: theology is "nonsense".
Is there proof of it?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Why the definition of Science has been changed? Isn't it a bit stupid not to know why, is it?

It has been refined to be more accurate.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

How come this change in dictionaries:
year 1828: theology is Science,
year 2018: theology is "nonsense".
Is there proof of it?

Speaking nonsense again I see.