Sex on the Beach.

[Callaway]

I think Schleed has a good point.  If believing in God is a question of faith, then people who believe in him need no scientific evidence for his existence.

While this statement is on its face value true, it reveals the dangerously guilable mindset of the believer. You can believe in absolutely any absurdity based on no evidence. And when you believe in absurdities, you can commint atrocities.

All that you've succeded in proving with this statement, is why there's so many Jim Jones's and David Koreshs' in the world.

People who are so staunchly atheist that they pick fights with people for no other reason than that they believe in God are just as bad as the people who believe in God so strongly that they ram their own specific religion down other people's throats.

Seriously Callaway?? I must've missed the last time Richard Dawkins burned Catholics at the stake.   

Both are equally intolerant of the beliefs of others.

FFS, how many times does this need to be pointed out.   Religious believers have beliefs in spite of no evidence or evidence to the contrary. Atheists beliefs are supported by the evidence. Archaeology has shown ALL religions, including Judeo-Christianity, to be man-made works of fiction.

There are more people killed by others who are either not religious, or if they are, religion does not enter into the reason they are killed.  You can make up a bunch of bullshit religions to desperately try to prove your point and call them deaths due to Stalinism or Pol Potism or Maoism or Hutuism, but that does not make them religions.

[Loupgarou]

"In formal logic, a contradiction is the signal of defeat, but in the evolution of real knowledge it marks the first step in progress toward a victory."
- Alfred North Whitehead.

I believe in Logic, but accept the illogical.

I believe in science, but accept faith

I accept Science, but believe in Faith

I believe that the only certain thing, is uncertainty.

I believe that just because it is not "truth" or "evidence based" does not mean that it does not exist.

I believe that I am full of contradictions, full of hypocrisies and full of flaws.........and most likely full of shit sometimes

But I am wise enough to know that I am human, and wish to question my very existence. Because if we existed on the "known", we would never seek to answer or accept the unknown.

Extreme polarity causes stagnation.......tolerance, maturity and some heated logical debate is what drives man to evolve, and THINK and appreciate points of view. And one must contradict oneself, to understand the others' point of view, in order to debate it. All the scientists that I have worked with, constantly contradicted themselves in the search for evidence based truths.

Yes, I am fiercely Roman Catholic, but that does not mean that I cannot observe its flaws. I do not confuse religion with faith, even though they are not mutually exclusive. I just concentrate on trying to be a  fair, kind and compassionate human being. That was my harsh lesson in this tenuous existence.

And Bullshit you can tear this post to shreds as I am sure you will try, but it does not change a thing. I am who I am, just as you are who you are, and the only true thing, is that NOTHING is true, it is only perception.........we are not evolved enough to see the TRUTH, for if we did, we would probably die on the spot from the horror and simplicity of it.


Loup

[Scrapheap]

I don't think it misses the point, more like you're missing the point. I'd only piss about with crazy religious people if they try to dogmatically force their views down my throat, otherwise I will leave them alone despite thinking religion is a pile of bullshit. Sure Loup is a bit of a sensitive bint, but is she forcing her views on others? She always admitted the hypocrisy in it herself.

It does not matter how much evidence there is, you cannot simply self-righteously try to convince others you're right and they're not if they've done nothing wrong to you. Just makes you as bad as any fundie nutjob.

PS. You're doing exactly what the cartoon is doing, only with more assburgers.

Most religious people are engaged in some kind or another of mis-information campaign. If no one challengers their crap, people, being largely ignorant, will believe their bullshit if they don't hear an opposing viewpoint. Neutrailty is not an option.

Loup has called me out because she can't stand to have her verbal obfuscation called by what it is.

[Adam]

Seriously Callaway?? I must've missed the last time Richard Dawkins burned Catholics at the stake.   

 :lol:

[Scrapheap]

When you say "atheist beliefs", I will assume that you are referring to scientific beliefs. (If by "atheism" you mean "positive atheism", you should know that there is an equal amount of rational evidence for and against the existence of God.)

No, science and atheism aren't synonymous. There is NOT an equal ammout of evidence for and against god. There's zero (good) evidence for god(s), and lots of good evidence against. Deism is the only plausable god claim, anf even it lacks positive evidence in its favor.

The scientific method does not exist in a vacuum. All scientific principles and experiments are ultimately based on a set of axioms that science basically takes on faith. Without a few basic assumptions, science does not work. For example, it must be assumed that the world is measurable, that the scientist in question is not hallucinating all of existence, that a supernatural entity is not manipulating the results of experiments, etc. You may believe that these are "absurdities", in which case I invite you to prove them false. Your prejudices about what "makes sense" are irrelevant to science. There are many scientific discoveries that do not follow common sense but are nonetheless true. Who is to say that the axioms I mentioned are not also true, even though they defy common sense?

The assumptions of science and religion can't be given equal footing simply because they're both called "assumptions". The assumptions of science are considered valid because they are repeatable, and have predictive power. The assumptions of religion are inherently unprovable.

Mathematicians is infamous for engaging in this sort of faith-based behavior. There was a logician named Kurt Gödel who proved that there is the possibility that mathematics is self-contradicting. If an inconsistency like this is ever discovered, the certainty of every mathematical theorem in history would (probably) be torn to shreds. There is no guarantee that it will not happen. In effect, mathematicians everywhere are engaging in a giant act of faith by staking their work on the belief that this will never happen.

So 2+2=4 is just an act of faith?? Perhaps you should try this attempt at muddying the waters with someone who's weak minded enough to accept this as a valid argument. 

We all choose the axioms that we use to make sense of the world. If someone decides to choose as an axiom "God exists", you have no business criticizing this decision unless you can rationally prove that the axiom is incorrect.

BULLSHIT! it is always incumbent on the person making a claim to provide sufficient evidence to support their claim. It is not incumbent on me to disprove it. Religion has a burden of proof on it that it can't meet. That's all that I need to "disprove" it.

Your implication that faith is inherently wrong is misguided and does not do justice to a logical philosophy.

You got this one 180 deg backwards. Faith is the antithesis of logical philosophy. It holds as a virtue, the denial of reality.

What a person chooses to accept on the basis of faith alone, in an area where only faith can provide answers, is that person's decision. You should not dismiss faith so lightly.

Faith can't provide the answers for anything. It only creates an illusion of answers by providing a made-up answer where none exist. To quote Jiddu Krishnamurti, "freedom from the desire for an answer is fundemental to the understanding of the issue".

[Semicolon]

I don't think it misses the point, more like you're missing the point. I'd only piss about with crazy religious people if they try to dogmatically force their views down my throat, otherwise I will leave them alone despite thinking religion is a pile of bullshit. Sure Loup is a bit of a sensitive bint, but is she forcing her views on others? She always admitted the hypocrisy in it herself.

It does not matter how much evidence there is, you cannot simply self-righteously try to convince others you're right and they're not if they've done nothing wrong to you. Just makes you as bad as any fundie nutjob.

PS. You're doing exactly what the cartoon is doing, only with more assburgers.

Most religious people are engaged in some kind or another of mis-information campaign. If no one challengers their crap, people, being largely ignorant, will believe their bullshit if they don't hear an opposing viewpoint. Neutrailty is not an option.

Loup has called me out because she can't stand to have her verbal obfuscation called by what it is.

Of course, people of one religion calling another religion to task absolutely never happens. I will admit that atheists do not have much say in the field of popular theology; however, religious individuals do not usually spread their religious views through hard science. If you feel the need to spread your view of the world, feel free to do so. However, it is not necessary to attack anyone else for you to spread your message.

In addition, there is a difference between calling someone out for forcefully proselytizing a false belief and calling someone out for merely sharing a philosophical opinion that you consider to be false. Also, neutrality is always an option in a philosophical debate. Disregarding that option in this debate is disrespectful to those who hold that point of view, and it creates a false dichotomy between your views and a straight religious viewpoint.

[Scrapheap]

You can make up a bunch of bullshit religions to desperately try to prove your point and call them deaths due to Stalinism or Pol Potism or Maoism or Hutuism, but that does not make them religions.

I was neither the first, nor will I be the last, to make the connection between Communist totalitarianism and religion. George Orwell was among the first to recognize this. In my last philosophy class, we had an entire chapter of our book detailing the parallels. The book concluded in saying that Communism was a secular religion. I don't feel like typing a full disertation at this point. To deny the connection is akin to denying the connection between acceleration and gravity. 

[eris]

Also, neutrality is always an option in a philosophical debate.

Yeah, i guess ANYTHING is possible. why would anyone debate if there is neutrality

Maybe for people that like to talk about napkins and kissing babies and other forcible nicities that I think is a total waste of time

I was a Philosophy major in college, so I can say this with _all_certainly_ that Communism is indeed "religion" as well as Sex is "religion" and so is fear

If someone wants to worship some Zombie that watches your every move, well, I think that is just absurd ! But to each his own I guess, Im not going to attack anyone "personally" for their opinions but I am also not going to sit and fucking listen to the shit.

So what I am saying, basically, is that people can fight about whatever they want and just because someone thinks it is uncouth, WFC. P


People with no opinions or who stay "neutral" should learn to not give a fuck what other people think - because being afraid of what other people think is the way someone could have no opinion... either that or you are REALLY FUCKING BORING

[Frolic_Fun]

But isn't not giving a fuck being neutral?

I tend to not give a fuck 99% of the time, unless someone is a complete retard.

[eris]

naa, not giving a fuck means you dont care. Not caring is an opinion


Neutrality means you don't have an opinion -   caring or not caring doesnt matter. Nothing really matters with neutrality.

[Frolic_Fun]

Everyone has an opinion, but I think what you mean are people who are too cowardly to express their opinions in order to be "nice" and boring. I don't really consider that neutral, just spineless.

[eris]

exactly

people who say they have no opinion are just afraid to let it out.

but I do think there are a few people out there ( not saying on this board) that REALLY ARE THAT BORING and just dont even think of such things.

[Semicolon]

When you say "atheist beliefs", I will assume that you are referring to scientific beliefs. (If by "atheism" you mean "positive atheism", you should know that there is an equal amount of rational evidence for and against the existence of God.)

No, science and atheism aren't synonymous. There is NOT an equal ammout of evidence for and against god. There's zero (good) evidence for god(s), and lots of good evidence against. Deism is the only plausable god claim, anf even it lacks positive evidence in its favor.

I invite you to prove that God does not exist.

The scientific method does not exist in a vacuum. All scientific principles and experiments are ultimately based on a set of axioms that science basically takes on faith. Without a few basic assumptions, science does not work. For example, it must be assumed that the world is measurable, that the scientist in question is not hallucinating all of existence, that a supernatural entity is not manipulating the results of experiments, etc. You may believe that these are "absurdities", in which case I invite you to prove them false. Your prejudices about what "makes sense" are irrelevant to science. There are many scientific discoveries that do not follow common sense but are nonetheless true. Who is to say that the axioms I mentioned are not also true, even though they defy common sense?

The assumptions of science and religion can't be given equal footing simply because they're both called "assumptions". The assumptions of science are considered valid because they are repeatable, and have predictive power. The assumptions of religion are inherently unprovable.

All of the assumptions I mentioned are inherently unprovable. In addition, I never mentioned the assumptions of religion as they compare to science; I stated that all science is based on "faith" (which is different from religion). You have misrepresented my argument and then argued against the misrepresentation.

Mathematicians is infamous for engaging in this sort of faith-based behavior. There was a logician named Kurt Gödel who proved that there is the possibility that mathematics is self-contradicting. If an inconsistency like this is ever discovered, the certainty of every mathematical theorem in history would (probably) be torn to shreds. There is no guarantee that it will not happen. In effect, mathematicians everywhere are engaging in a giant act of faith by staking their work on the belief that this will never happen.

So 2+2=4 is just an act of faith?? Perhaps you should try this attempt at muddying the waters with someone who's weak minded enough to accept this as a valid argument. 

You clearly do not understand this mathematical theorem. Yes, 2+2=4, but there is no way to know if, someday, someone will prove that 2+2=5. This is a gross simplification, but it cuts to the heart of the theorem. For someone who trumpets the superiority of science, you have a peculiar willingness to automatically disregard a proven mathematical theorem just because it doesn't fit your worldview.

Your prejudices about what "makes sense" are irrelevant to science. There are many scientific discoveries that do not follow common sense but are nonetheless true.

This is one of those discoveries.

We all choose the axioms that we use to make sense of the world. If someone decides to choose as an axiom "God exists", you have no business criticizing this decision unless you can rationally prove that the axiom is incorrect.

BULLSHIT! it is always incumbent on the person making a claim to provide sufficient evidence to support their claim. It is not incumbent on me to disprove it. Religion has a burden of proof on it that it can't meet. That's all that I need to "disprove" it.

Of course not. That is ridiculous. It is certainly applicable to scientific discoveries and theories, but it does not automatically apply to the entire world. Hold on to that thought, though.

Your implication that faith is inherently wrong is misguided and does not do justice to a logical philosophy.

You got this one 180 deg backwards. Faith is the antithesis of logical philosophy. It holds as a virtue, the denial of reality.

I have already stated that all philosophy requires faith in order to exist. In addition, it is possible (and necessary for everyday life) to take things on faith that are, objectively speaking, true.

What a person chooses to accept on the basis of faith alone, in an area where only faith can provide answers, is that person's decision. You should not dismiss faith so lightly.

Faith can't provide the answers for anything. It only creates an illusion of answers by providing a made-up answer where none exist. To quote Jiddu Krishnamurti, "freedom from the desire for an answer is fundemental to the understanding of the issue".

Faith cannot provide the answers to you. There are a lot of questions that cannot be answered through science alone.

• Why are we here?
• Is there a higher power than man?
• Do humans have souls?
• What happens to souls after people die (if they do exist)?

If you believe that faith cannot provide the answers to these questions, I invite you to state your proof.

BULLSHIT! it is always incumbent on the person making a claim to provide sufficient evidence to support their claim. It is not incumbent on me to disprove it. Religion has a burden of proof on it that it can't meet. That's all that I need to "disprove" it.

BULLSHIT: You have made several claims in your argument. You have claimed to have (or know of) good evidence that God does not exist. You have essentially claimed that Godel's Incompleteness Theorem is incorrect (although it isn't clear if you even understand what the theorem says). You have claimed that faith can never provide an answer for anything. By your own rule, you must give sufficient evidence to support your viewpoint; otherwise, I will simply "disprove" it because you didn't meet the burden of proof. I await your reply.

[eris]

All philosophy does not require faith in order to exist. In some philosophies existance doesnt exist.

first off

and

Faith cannot provide the answers to you. There are a lot of questions that cannot be answered through science alone.
•Why are we here?
•Is there a higher power than man?
•Do humans have souls?
•What happens to souls after people die (if they do exist)?
If you believe that faith cannot provide the answers to these questions, I invite you to state your proof.

this is METAPHYSICS. Metaphysics does NOT require faith.

[Semicolon]

All philosophy does not require faith in order to exist. In some philosophies existance doesnt exist.

I think, therefore, I am. If a person does not exist, then how can that person then consider the philosophy?

However, if you are referring to the null philosophy of "nothing exists", then the statement that "existence does not exist" requires faith to believe, especially because of the counterargument above.

Faith cannot provide the answers to you. There are a lot of questions that cannot be answered through science alone.
•Why are we here?
•Is there a higher power than man?
•Do humans have souls?
•What happens to souls after people die (if they do exist)?
If you believe that faith cannot provide the answers to these questions, I invite you to state your proof.

this is METAPHYSICS. Metaphysics does NOT require faith.

I never said that metaphysics could not provide the answers to those questions. BULLSHIT claimed that faith could not provide the answer to any question, and I disagreed. My assertion is that faith can provide the answers to those questions.