And speaking to you right now, using this account, because as you know, I am allmighty, all knowing and all-wise. So mighty in fact, that I can't create my own account. But I'm sure you believers will overlook that, and will continue reading if you want to enter heaven
These are the same people who ask god for favors and believe god is making things happen.
...So they pray to god to take care of the victims that god has killed. If that's not fucking retarded, I don't know what is.
That's all fine and dandy Unleashed, but it's not part of my argument.
No it's not fine and dandy. I think you don't realize the madness of what I wrote there.
I can see a lot of madness in you quoting me after two month passed by. I can also see a lot of madness in your obsession with religion. I can see even more madness in you discussion religion on the internet day in and day out, as if you had no productive things to do.
And yet it's all fine and dandy Unleashed, because I couldn't care less.
These are the same people who ask god for favors and believe god is making things happen.
...So they pray to god to take care of the victims that god has killed. If that's not fucking retarded, I don't know what is.
That's all fine and dandy Unleashed, but it's not part of my argument.
No it's not fine and dandy. I think you don't realize the madness of what I wrote there.
I can see a lot of madness in you quoting me after two month passed by. I can also see a lot of madness in your obsession with religion. I can see even more madness in you discussion religion on the internet day in and day out, as if you had no productive things to do.
And yet it's all fine and dandy Unleashed, because I couldn't care less.
You couldn't careless but you cared enough to respond. It's all fine and dandy with those who don't care about anything and have no purpose at all such as yourself. The rest of us who try to make people think and change for the better, will be at war with the madness of religion for all eternity.
----
The Most Feared Nazi Germany and SM Ukraine player in AW history. Retired
These are the same people who ask god for favors and believe god is making things happen.
...So they pray to god to take care of the victims that god has killed. If that's not fucking retarded, I don't know what is.
That's all fine and dandy Unleashed, but it's not part of my argument.
No it's not fine and dandy. I think you don't realize the madness of what I wrote there.
I can see a lot of madness in you quoting me after two month passed by. I can also see a lot of madness in your obsession with religion. I can see even more madness in you discussion religion on the internet day in and day out, as if you had no productive things to do.
And yet it's all fine and dandy Unleashed, because I couldn't care less.
You couldn't careless but you cared enough to respond. It's all fine and dandy with those who don't care about anything and have no purpose at all such as yourself. The rest of us who try to make people think and change for the better, will be at war with the madness of religion for all eternity.
This video commits the fallacy of equivocation
Atheism is broadly accepted as the 'rejection of belief in the existence of deities'
All of the superstitious entities enumerated in the video are deities, from Zeus to YHWH.
One can believe in a superstitious deity (e.g. Zeus), and not believe in another (e.g. Wotan) and not be an atheist.
The expression 'Atheist' isn't limited to those who disbelieve in YHWH (the god of Abraham).
Similarly, those who hold beliefs which may be factually incorrect are not necessarily mentally ill.
For example, one who believes 'atheist' is a term for one who chooses not to believe in the muslim/jewish/christian god is factually incorrect, but not necessarily mentally ill.
I never said I believe in god, I said that classifying everyone that DOES believe in some sort of god (the majority of the entire world's population) is moronic.
I never said I believe in god, I said that classifying everyone that DOES believe in some sort of god (the majority of the entire world's population) is moronic.
No. Your parents are moronic, for having such a stupid child.
Atheism is broadly accepted as the 'rejection of belief in the existence of deities'
Yes. Even the dictionary definition subtly implies, that there must be something wrong with the atheist. Atheism definition of dictionary:
"Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god."
To any rational thinker, this is an unsatisfactory definition, which is exactly what you expect from a word originally defined by theists.
"WHAT? He is REJECTING the existence of deities? He must be in denial." As if god's existence is already established as truth and reality.
How about this definition instead: Atheism: The acceptance of the non-existence of imaginary entities such as Santa Claus, Tooth Fairy, and other imaginary friends. Do you see the difference? And if that's too "childish", stop at: The acceptance of the non-existence of imaginary entities. Now we're talking.
Your problem is my friend that you believe god should be rational, calm celestial being ...god is not god unless he is both the cutest creature and a meanest son of a bitch.
Btw. Its interesting how people trust scientists but not priests... They are both experts in their field and most of the time they are both wrong. One day i read coffee will kill you the next day i read i shoul drink gallons ...fuck you science fuck you god, fuck everything i only trust myself and not even that cuz i evolved from an ape ...SATAN!!!!
K im mad.
science adjusts its beliefs based on whats observed, religion is the denial of observations so that faith may be preserved.
science > religion
Science is a consensual hallucination shared by people who call themselves 'rational' which holds, axiomatically, that physical universe can be understood by the systematic organization of observations towards making predictions, based on testable hypotheses. These axioms are no more than beliefs held by people who call themselves scientists and cannot be proven.
- There is an objective reality shared by all rational observers
- This objective reality is governed by natural laws
- These laws can be discovered by means of systematic observation and experimentation.
- (Most philosophers would add a 4th) A scientific claim must be falsifiable.
Scientists often dismiss contrary evidence as 'anomalous' or 'outlying' or 'low probability'.
Religion in a consensual hallucination which holds, axiomatically, that one or more supernatural forces (often manifested as beings) exist. The set of 'religious people' contains a subset called 'Monotheists'. The axioms vary, depending on the religion discussed.
Axioms held by (most) people who call themselves Monotheists
- There is a unitary being called God who may or may not incarnate in different forms.
- God is all (powerful, knowing, good) and has, and will always exist.
- God created the Universe.
- (Most theologians would add a 4th) God's existence cannot be proven, as this would obviate *faith*.
Religionists often disregard contrary evidence, classifying it as 'a challenge to free will' or 'heresy' or 'God's plan'.
In one sense, one could fairly claim science = religion because they are both based on axioms that are not demonstrable, that is, the fundamental building blocks of their beliefs cannot be proven, and their arguments are built from these beliefs. Finally, neither belief system makes any sense unless the observer dogmatically accepts the axiomatic tenets.
More usefully, one would claim science <> religion, because they address two very different realms of human knowledge - science addresses the 'physical' and observable world, and religion is within the realm of the metaphysical. This viewpoint is known as NOMA - 'non overlapping magisteria' where science and metaphysics are two distinct, non-overlapping domains of knowledge.
===
Fundamentalist (my term) Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus etc. would claim that there is overlap in these domains of knowledge, and where there is overlap in these domains, their religious beliefs assume supremacy, even though their axioms cannot be proven.
For example, Fun Christians may claim that the earth is no more than 7000 solar years old, and point to the Old Testament narrative of Genesis to demonstrate this claim. Scientists disagree, and present evidence, from annular tree rings of >7000 to geological, radiological and cosmological evidence that the earth (and universe) is > 7000 years old. Fun Christians would disagree with the evidence and trot out their own scientists.
Ultimately, the Fun Christians would ask "how can a billion people be wrong"?
Fundamentalist (my term) Scientists would claim that there is overlap in these domains of knowledge, and where there is overlap in the these domains, their scientific beliefs assume supremacy, even though their axioms cannot be proven.
For example Fun Scientists may claim that a man cannot be dead for three days and rise from the grave, and point to the fact that of millions of observations, no person has yet resurrected. Fun Christians would claim resurrection as a special case, occurring only twice, historically. Scientists would demand from the Fun Christians evidence for their claims to which they would point to their source literature (the bible).
Ultimately, the Fun Scientists would ask "how can millions of scientists be wrong?"
Atheism is broadly accepted as the 'rejection of belief in the existence of deities'
Yes. Even the dictionary definition subtly implies, that there must be something wrong with the atheist. Atheism definition of dictionary:
"Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god."
To any rational thinker, this is an unsatisfactory definition, which is exactly what you expect from a word originally defined by theists.
"WHAT? He is REJECTING the existence of deities? He must be in denial." As if god's existence is already established as truth and reality.
How about this definition instead: Atheism: The acceptance of the non-existence of imaginary entities such as Santa Claus, Tooth Fairy, and other imaginary friends. Do you see the difference? And if that's too "childish", stop at: The acceptance of the non-existence of imaginary entities. Now we're talking.
Perhaps you didn't watch the video you posted?
Let me summarize it for you.
Character [A] interrogates [B] to their belief in a number of supernatural beings. To each [B] answers 'no'.
When [A] mentions 'Yahweh' and [B] says 'no', [A] then verbally harasses [B], starting with calling [B] an atheist, which he reserves for a disbelief in Yahweh.
In an earlier post, I note that the phrase 'atheist' refers to a state of disbelief in the existence of deities, generally, and is not reserved for a special-case deity, Yahweh, and that the video suffers from the fallacy of equivocation. I posted links to both the definition of atheist and equivocation, earlier, as well.
In other words, a reasonable person viewing the video could only come to the following conclusions:
1. The maker of the video considers atheism to be disbelief in Yahweh, specifically, and is unaware of the generally-accepted definition.
2. The maker of the video is aware of the generally-accepted definition, and is intentionally trying to deceive the viewer.
3. The maker of the video is aware of the generally-accepted definition, is not trying to deceive the viewer, but is such an idiot that he has entirely fucked up Sam Harris' point about the phrase 'atheist'.
I posit the maker, and the poster of the video, with 3.
Too stupid to realize the point that a noted 'New Atheist' was actually trying to make, and generally bollocksing up Atheism, turning it from a logically-sustainable viewpoint to just another hate-filled religious viewpoint.
Here's the original quote:
Citat:
Q: How are atheists most misunderstood? What should people know that they don't know about you?
A: They should know that the very term "atheist" is not necessary. There are many atheists who would never dream of calling themselves atheists or join an atheist society or otherwise organize themselves. We don't have a word for not believing in Zeus, which is to say we are all atheists in respect to Zeus. And we don't have a word for not being an astrologer. Nobody gets up in the morning and says I'm not an astrologer, I'm not an astrologer. This is just not a variable around which people gather. Ultimately the point of view of atheism is really one of — atheism is just the disgruntled noises people make in the face of religious dogmatism. It's really reason and a demand for evidence in the face of religiously sanctioned false certainly. I'll be very happy when we retire the term "atheist," and I think it is a word destined for disuse because if atheists win and we all just achieve a level of intellectual honesty where we are no longer going to pretend to be certain about things we are not certain about, then we'll just be open-minded, rational, scientifically inclined people who will talk about spiritual experiences honestly, talk about ethics honestly, talk about the shape of the universe honestly, and it won't be a word.
That being said, Mr. Harris *also* commits the logical fallacy of equivocation, but his point IS NOT that 'atheist' is reserved for Yahweh, but that 'atheist' should fall into disuse when his utopian vision is achieved. In fairness to Harris, he's a researcher, not a philosopher.
If you are indeed Unleashed, you haven't read this far.
If you are not Unleashed, please read the following: Educate yourself. Don't be a religion hater, be a skeptic. To any reasonable person, mindless atheism is exactly the same as mindless religion.
Your problem is my friend that you believe god should be rational, calm celestial being ...god is not god unless he is both the cutest creature and a meanest son of a bitch.
Btw. Its interesting how people trust scientists but not priests... They are both experts in their field and most of the time they are both wrong. One day i read coffee will kill you the next day i read i shoul drink gallons ...fuck you science fuck you god, fuck everything i only trust myself and not even that cuz i evolved from an ape ...SATAN!!!!
K im mad.
science adjusts its beliefs based on whats observed, religion is the denial of observations so that faith may be preserved.
science > religion
Science is a consensual hallucination shared by people who call themselves 'rational' which holds, axiomatically, that physical universe can be understood by the systematic organization of observations towards making predictions, based on testable hypotheses. These axioms are no more than beliefs held by people who call themselves scientists and cannot be proven.
- There is an objective reality shared by all rational observers
- This objective reality is governed by natural laws
- These laws can be discovered by means of systematic observation and experimentation.
- (Most philosophers would add a 4th) A scientific claim must be falsifiable.
Scientists often dismiss contrary evidence as 'anomalous' or 'outlying' or 'low probability'.
Religion in a consensual hallucination which holds, axiomatically, that one or more supernatural forces (often manifested as beings) exist. The set of 'religious people' contains a subset called 'Monotheists'. The axioms vary, depending on the religion discussed.
Axioms held by (most) people who call themselves Monotheists
- There is a unitary being called God who may or may not incarnate in different forms.
- God is all (powerful, knowing, good) and has, and will always exist.
- God created the Universe.
- (Most theologians would add a 4th) God's existence cannot be proven, as this would obviate *faith*.
Religionists often disregard contrary evidence, classifying it as 'a challenge to free will' or 'heresy' or 'God's plan'.
In one sense, one could fairly claim science = religion because they are both based on axioms that are not demonstrable, that is, the fundamental building blocks of their beliefs cannot be proven, and their arguments are built from these beliefs. Finally, neither belief system makes any sense unless the observer dogmatically accepts the axiomatic tenets.
More usefully, one would claim science <> religion, because they address two very different realms of human knowledge - science addresses the 'physical' and observable world, and religion is within the realm of the metaphysical. This viewpoint is known as NOMA - 'non overlapping magisteria' where science and metaphysics are two distinct, non-overlapping domains of knowledge.
===
Fundamentalist (my term) Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus etc. would claim that there is overlap in these domains of knowledge, and where there is overlap in these domains, their religious beliefs assume supremacy, even though their axioms cannot be proven.
For example, Fun XTNs may claim that the earth is no more than 7000 solar years old, and point to the Old Testament narrative of Genesis to demonstrate this claim. Scientists disagree, and present evidence, from annular tree rings of >7000 to geological, radiological and cosmological evidence that the earth (and universe) is > 7000 years old. Fun XTNs would disagree with the evidence and trot out their own scientists.
Ultimately, the Fun XTNs would ask "how can a billion people be wrong"?
Fundamentalist (my term) Scientists would claim that there is overlap in these domains of knowledge, and where there is overlap in the these domains, their scientific beliefs assume supremacy, even though their axioms cannot be proven.
For example Fun Scientists may claim that a man cannot be dead for three days and rise from the grave, and point to the fact that of millions of observations, no person has yet resurrected. Fun XTNs would claim resurrection as a special case, occurring only twice, historically. Scientists would demand from the Fun XTNs evidence for their claims to which they would point to their source literature (the bible).
Ultimately, the Fun Scientists would ask "how can millions of scientists be wrong?"
I have no desire to open that whole science vs religion thing again, but since you brought it up again, i just want to state that i find yours and Goblins post, blatantly offensive and insulting.That level of ingratitude and "blasphemy" (yes i know the definition and i dont care) makes you dangerous individuals.
In a so hostile and so mysterious universe as the one we live in, when we were always under threat of extinction and when we cant even fully explain basic concepts such as reality,time,life,death, the only thing we have going for us are science and scientists.And yet you still trying to discredit them and shit talk about them, which is in fact bitting the hand that tries to help you.I dont care if you believe in flying ponies, im not gonna try and convince you, but back off science, ungratefull little pricks.
P.S.Just for the hell of it,the big debate of science and religion, about the creation.Where did scientists found the evidence to support their theory and where religious people found theirs?
Scientists:
-radiometric dating
-observation of cosmic backround radiation
-primordial nucleosynthesis
-distribution and morphology of galaxies
-theory of general relativity
-genetics and phylogenetics
-heredity
-hybridization
-microevolution
-fossil record
-comparative sequence alighnment
-vestigial and homologus structures
-acquired antibiotic and pesticide resistance
-geographic distribution and correlation
-island biogeography
religious: Books
And after this, in your minds, scientists= priests.Insulting beyond measurement.
You dont have to believe in scientists, believe in some old books if you want, i dont care.But you better damn well respect all the hard work they put in, to help us understand what is going on around us.
Your problem is my friend that you believe god should be rational, calm celestial being ...god is not god unless he is both the cutest creature and a meanest son of a bitch.
Btw. Its interesting how people trust scientists but not priests... They are both experts in their field and most of the time they are both wrong. One day i read coffee will kill you the next day i read i shoul drink gallons ...fuck you science fuck you god, fuck everything i only trust myself and not even that cuz i evolved from an ape ...SATAN!!!!
K im mad.
science adjusts its beliefs based on whats observed, religion is the denial of observations so that faith may be preserved.
science > religion
Science is a consensual hallucination shared by people who call themselves 'rational' which holds, axiomatically, that physical universe can be understood by the systematic organization of observations towards making predictions, based on testable hypotheses. These axioms are no more than beliefs held by people who call themselves scientists and cannot be proven.
- There is an objective reality shared by all rational observers
- This objective reality is governed by natural laws
- These laws can be discovered by means of systematic observation and experimentation.
- (Most philosophers would add a 4th) A scientific claim must be falsifiable.
Scientists often dismiss contrary evidence as 'anomalous' or 'outlying' or 'low probability'.
Religion in a consensual hallucination which holds, axiomatically, that one or more supernatural forces (often manifested as beings) exist. The set of 'religious people' contains a subset called 'Monotheists'. The axioms vary, depending on the religion discussed.
Axioms held by (most) people who call themselves Monotheists
- There is a unitary being called God who may or may not incarnate in different forms.
- God is all (powerful, knowing, good) and has, and will always exist.
- God created the Universe.
- (Most theologians would add a 4th) God's existence cannot be proven, as this would obviate *faith*.
Religionists often disregard contrary evidence, classifying it as 'a challenge to free will' or 'heresy' or 'God's plan'.
In one sense, one could fairly claim science = religion because they are both based on axioms that are not demonstrable, that is, the fundamental building blocks of their beliefs cannot be proven, and their arguments are built from these beliefs. Finally, neither belief system makes any sense unless the observer dogmatically accepts the axiomatic tenets.
More usefully, one would claim science <> religion, because they address two very different realms of human knowledge - science addresses the 'physical' and observable world, and religion is within the realm of the metaphysical. This viewpoint is known as NOMA - 'non overlapping magisteria' where science and metaphysics are two distinct, non-overlapping domains of knowledge.
===
Fundamentalist (my term) Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus etc. would claim that there is overlap in these domains of knowledge, and where there is overlap in these domains, their religious beliefs assume supremacy, even though their axioms cannot be proven.
For example, Fun XTNs may claim that the earth is no more than 7000 solar years old, and point to the Old Testament narrative of Genesis to demonstrate this claim. Scientists disagree, and present evidence, from annular tree rings of >7000 to geological, radiological and cosmological evidence that the earth (and universe) is > 7000 years old. Fun XTNs would disagree with the evidence and trot out their own scientists.
Ultimately, the Fun XTNs would ask "how can a billion people be wrong"?
Fundamentalist (my term) Scientists would claim that there is overlap in these domains of knowledge, and where there is overlap in the these domains, their scientific beliefs assume supremacy, even though their axioms cannot be proven.
For example Fun Scientists may claim that a man cannot be dead for three days and rise from the grave, and point to the fact that of millions of observations, no person has yet resurrected. Fun XTNs would claim resurrection as a special case, occurring only twice, historically. Scientists would demand from the Fun XTNs evidence for their claims to which they would point to their source literature (the bible).
Ultimately, the Fun Scientists would ask "how can millions of scientists be wrong?"
I have no desire to open that whole science vs religion thing again, but since you brought it up again, i just want to state that i find yours and Goblins post, blatantly offensive and insulting.That level of ingratitude and "blasphemy" (yes i know the definition and i dont care) makes you dangerous individuals.
In a so hostile and so mysterious universe as the one we live in, when we were always under threat of extinction and when we cant even fully explain basic concepts such as reality,time,life,death, the only thing we have going for us are science and scientists.And yet you still trying to discredit them and shit talk about them, which is in fact bitting the hand that tries to help you.I dont care if you believe in flying ponies, im not gonna try and convince you, but back off science, ungratefull little pricks.
P.S.Just for the hell of it,the big debate of science and religion, about the creation.Where did scientists found the evidence to support their theory and where religious people found theirs?
Scientists:
-radiometric dating
-observation of cosmic backround radiation
-primordial nucleosynthesis
-distribution and morphology of galaxies
-theory of general relativity
-genetics and phylogenetics
-heredity
-hybridization
-microevolution
-fossil record
-comparative sequence alighnment
-vestigial and homologus structures
-acquired antibiotic and pesticide resistance
-geographic distribution and correlation
-island biogeography
religious: Books
And after this, in your minds, scientists= priests.Insulting beyond measurement.
You dont have to believe in scientists, believe in some old books if you want, i dont care.But you better damn well respect all the hard work they put in, to help us understand what is going on around us.
Guess you didn't read my post, did you?
Or if you read it, you didn't understand it, and (again) flew off the handle and inserted words where there were none and your meaning when my meaning was CLEAR.
All I was saying is that the LOGICAL foundation of both religion and science are similar in that they are axiomatically unprovable.
I APPRECIATE science more than you do. I KNOW what it IS. You clearly do NOT. At best you know what science DOES, and I say at best, because your list of 'sciencey things' is a mix of scientific theories, technology (which is different from science), and *things* (versus concepts, theories or observations).
Now, I am glad that u <3 science, but again, you rage at me with little content and for no reason.
===
Neither science nor religion are to blame for the 'evil' in the world. That blame lays on people.
Religion and science are 'people things' - Gods, if the exist, and natural laws, if they exist, exist OUTSIDE of people's belief state, in them.
Science gave us the means to destroy ourselves that mere technological tinkering would never have given us. Tinkering and trial-and-error would be unlikely to lead people to the hydrogen bomb before the heat death of the universe. Religion gives 1/6 of the world all the justification they need to murder the rest.
I wouldn't blame 'islam' or 'nuclear physics' and 'rocketry' and 'computers' - I'd blame the people who used these human creations for their own ends.
Se încarcă...
Se încarcă...
Black Shark Cont șters
23.04.2014 - 13:25
Black Shark Cont șters
So Unleashed, every Christian is mentally ill? So say, Galileo was mentally ill? Tesla? Plato was pagan, and you classify him as a moron.
There are no atheists or believers. There's either mentally healthy or mentally ill people. Atheists don't exist.
WTF is it with you and Unleashed?
You have access to dictionaries and internets. Use them?
Mental illness
A mental disorder, also called a mental illness or psychiatric disorder, is a mental or behavioral pattern or anomaly that causes either suffering or an impaired ability to function in ordinary life (disability), and which is not developmentally or socially normative.
Atheism
Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.
1. Mentally ill people can be atheists or theists. Just because you're an atheist doesn't mean you're sane.
2. Mentally healthy people can be atheists or theists. Just because your a muslim doesn't mean you're insane.
3. Atheists are people who reject the belief in the existence of deities. So, atheists are PEOPLE, and their state of religious belief is independent of their mental health.
4. Atheists/non-religious people are the minority in the world (see below).
5. Atheists are people who do exist. Clearly, atheists exist, and they may or may not be mentally healthy.
It is good that mental illness is defined in terms of suffering and impairment, and developmental or social normativeness, because most people have religious beliefs, and atheists/non-religious people have a very different worldview from that of most people.
One who holds a view of the world in contrast to the vast majority (who holds a view that is not socially normative) is generally termed 'crazy'.
It is good that we leave determinations of mental illness (and 'crazy') to mental health professionals, rather than to typical people.
Lol everyone who doesnt belive in a person in the sky or a book written by men are either depressed or have a empty hole and is a drug addict and apparently has horrible nightmares.........LOL even if there was the slightest possiblity that god exist i would rather burn in his so called hell than sit up in some magical cloud land with the by all accounts a tyrannt that says he loves you BUT will gladly send your ass to hell if you dont agree with him/her fuck religion it is and always will be a plauge on society
And this argument is logically valid, and internally consistent.
Your problem is my friend that you believe god should be rational, calm celestial being ...god is not god unless he is both the cutest creature and a meanest son of a bitch.
Btw. Its interesting how people trust scientists but not priests... They are both experts in their field and most of the time they are both wrong. One day i read coffee will kill you the next day i read i shoul drink gallons ...fuck you science fuck you god, fuck everything i only trust myself and not even that cuz i evolved from an ape ...SATAN!!!!
K im mad.
science adjusts its beliefs based on whats observed, religion is the denial of observations so that faith may be preserved.
science > religion
Science is a consensual hallucination shared by people who call themselves 'rational' which holds, axiomatically, that physical universe can be understood by the systematic organization of observations towards making predictions, based on testable hypotheses. These axioms are no more than beliefs held by people who call themselves scientists and cannot be proven.
- There is an objective reality shared by all rational observers
- This objective reality is governed by natural laws
- These laws can be discovered by means of systematic observation and experimentation.
- (Most philosophers would add a 4th) A scientific claim must be falsifiable.
Scientists often dismiss contrary evidence as 'anomalous' or 'outlying' or 'low probability'.
Religion in a consensual hallucination which holds, axiomatically, that one or more supernatural forces (often manifested as beings) exist. The set of 'religious people' contains a subset called 'Monotheists'. The axioms vary, depending on the religion discussed.
Axioms held by (most) people who call themselves Monotheists
- There is a unitary being called God who may or may not incarnate in different forms.
- God is all (powerful, knowing, good) and has, and will always exist.
- God created the Universe.
- (Most theologians would add a 4th) God's existence cannot be proven, as this would obviate *faith*.
Religionists often disregard contrary evidence, classifying it as 'a challenge to free will' or 'heresy' or 'God's plan'.
In one sense, one could fairly claim science = religion because they are both based on axioms that are not demonstrable, that is, the fundamental building blocks of their beliefs cannot be proven, and their arguments are built from these beliefs. Finally, neither belief system makes any sense unless the observer dogmatically accepts the axiomatic tenets.
More usefully, one would claim science <> religion, because they address two very different realms of human knowledge - science addresses the 'physical' and observable world, and religion is within the realm of the metaphysical. This viewpoint is known as NOMA - 'non overlapping magisteria' where science and metaphysics are two distinct, non-overlapping domains of knowledge.
===
Fundamentalist (my term) Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus etc. would claim that there is overlap in these domains of knowledge, and where there is overlap in these domains, their religious beliefs assume supremacy, even though their axioms cannot be proven.
For example, Fun XTNs may claim that the earth is no more than 7000 solar years old, and point to the Old Testament narrative of Genesis to demonstrate this claim. Scientists disagree, and present evidence, from annular tree rings of >7000 to geological, radiological and cosmological evidence that the earth (and universe) is > 7000 years old. Fun XTNs would disagree with the evidence and trot out their own scientists.
Ultimately, the Fun XTNs would ask "how can a billion people be wrong"?
Fundamentalist (my term) Scientists would claim that there is overlap in these domains of knowledge, and where there is overlap in the these domains, their scientific beliefs assume supremacy, even though their axioms cannot be proven.
For example Fun Scientists may claim that a man cannot be dead for three days and rise from the grave, and point to the fact that of millions of observations, no person has yet resurrected. Fun XTNs would claim resurrection as a special case, occurring only twice, historically. Scientists would demand from the Fun XTNs evidence for their claims to which they would point to their source literature (the bible).
Ultimately, the Fun Scientists would ask "how can millions of scientists be wrong?"
I have no desire to open that whole science vs religion thing again, but since you brought it up again, i just want to state that i find yours and Goblins post, blatantly offensive and insulting.That level of ingratitude and "blasphemy" (yes i know the definition and i dont care) makes you dangerous individuals.
In a so hostile and so mysterious universe as the one we live in, when we were always under threat of extinction and when we cant even fully explain basic concepts such as reality,time,life,death, the only thing we have going for us are science and scientists.And yet you still trying to discredit them and shit talk about them, which is in fact bitting the hand that tries to help you.I dont care if you believe in flying ponies, im not gonna try and convince you, but back off science, ungratefull little pricks.
P.S.Just for the hell of it,the big debate of science and religion, about the creation.Where did scientists found the evidence to support their theory and where religious people found theirs?
Scientists:
-radiometric dating
-observation of cosmic backround radiation
-primordial nucleosynthesis
-distribution and morphology of galaxies
-theory of general relativity
-genetics and phylogenetics
-heredity
-hybridization
-microevolution
-fossil record
-comparative sequence alighnment
-vestigial and homologus structures
-acquired antibiotic and pesticide resistance
-geographic distribution and correlation
-island biogeography
religious: Books
And after this, in your minds, scientists= priests.Insulting beyond measurement.
You dont have to believe in scientists, believe in some old books if you want, i dont care.But you better damn well respect all the hard work they put in, to help us understand what is going on around us.
Guess you didn't read my post, did you?
Or if you read it, you didn't understand it, and (again) flew off the handle and inserted words where there were none and your meaning when my meaning was CLEAR.
All I was saying is that the LOGICAL foundation of both religion and science are similar in that they are axiomatically unprovable.
I APPRECIATE science more than you do. I KNOW what it IS. You clearly do NOT. At best you know what science DOES, and I say at best, because your list of 'sciencey things' is a mix of scientific theories, technology (which is different from science), and *things* (versus concepts, theories or observations).
Now, I am glad that u <3 science, but again, you rage at me with little content and for no reason.
===
Neither science nor religion are to blame for the 'evil' in the world. That blame lays on people.
Religion and science are 'people things' - Gods, if the exist, and natural laws, if they exist, exist OUTSIDE of people's belief state, in them.
Science gave us the means to destroy ourselves that mere technological tinkering would never have given us. Tinkering and trial-and-error would be unlikely to lead people to the hydrogen bomb before the heat death of the universe. Religion gives 1/6 of the world all the justification they need to murder the rest.
I wouldn't blame 'islam' or 'nuclear physics' and 'rocketry' and 'computers' - I'd blame the people who used these human creations for their own ends.
No you dont appreciate science at all, you try to bring it down, at every oppurtunity.I watched you carefully and i have reached my conclusions.And you are certainly lying about being an atheist.You are a zionist jewish american law student focused on civics or some shit, who enjoy playing with words because thats what he was taught to do.The most useless,bullshiting,wordtwisting,corrupted proffesion.In practice thats what you been taught and trained to do.Twist words,use them in your advantage and lie.
Go become a great lawyer,protect the goverment,the church,the elite or some murderers, i dont care.Just shut it about scientists, because i am very well aware why you do this.Scientists always threatened your kind and were always hunted down and controlled, either through money and bribes or intimidation.But none of the Jewish controlled media in America, ever said a damn thing about the cases of scientists being attacked,their laboratories trashed and even murdered, cause they wanted to share their inventions and knowledge with the people.
3. Atheists are people who reject the belief in the existence of deities. So, atheists are PEOPLE, and their state of religious belief is independent of
You didn't even read my post about this. Get the fuck out of this thread already, religious piece of shit.
So Unleashed, every Christian is mentally ill? So say, Galileo was mentally ill? Tesla? Plato was pagan, and you classify him as a moron.
Ffs go to school. Did you even graduate?
Yes. You are insane. Please don't reproduce.
No, you don't reproduce. Tell me how the world works btw, you can't use the scientific method, galileo's observations, the teloscope or many other things. Including this computer, since Nikola Tesla helped create tech to create the computer.
So Unleashed, every Christian is mentally ill? So say, Galileo was mentally ill? Tesla? Plato was pagan, and you classify him as a moron.
Ffs go to school. Did you even graduate?
Yes. You are insane. Please don't reproduce.
No, you don't reproduce. Tell me how the world works btw, you can't use the scientific method, galileo's observations, the teloscope or many other things. Including this computer, since Nikola Tesla helped create tech to create the computer.
Here's what you need to understand: In this overpopulated world, we need less and less idiots such as yourself. When you grow up, you will find a dumb woman to reproduce with, thus perpetuating the same kind of stupidity which has been passed down to you. Gofuckyourself.
So Unleashed, every Christian is mentally ill? So say, Galileo was mentally ill? Tesla? Plato was pagan, and you classify him as a moron.
Ffs go to school. Did you even graduate?
Yes. You are insane. Please don't reproduce.
No, you don't reproduce. Tell me how the world works btw, you can't use the scientific method, galileo's observations, the teloscope or many other things. Including this computer, since Nikola Tesla helped create tech to create the computer.
Here's what you need to understand: In this overpopulated world, we need less and less idiots such as yourself. When you grow up, you will find a dumb woman to reproduce with, thus perpetuating the same kind of stupidity which has been passed down to you. Gofuckyourself.
Insults is all you got. I just kicked your ass in this debate.
so you get ready for when science can explain everything.
I hate to break it to you but thinking this is incredibly naive. Science may be the most useful tool we have in discovering truth but it's far from perfect and leaves us with two questions every time we get an answer.
Well said - I'd go even further: Science gives us the best explanation for observable phenomena until a better one comes along. Sometimes, several generations of people can be confident in a particular scientific theory (e.g. Newtonian Physics), but the 'closer' we get to any Natural Law, the farther away we realize we are.
Einstein was perhaps the last famous scientist that actually believed the universe, at a fundamental level, could be understood in any meaningful 'mechanistic' way. From before any of us were born until the heat death of the universe, its all going to be patches, strings, colors, shapes and other abstractions that, while they come inexorably closer to describing the ultimate nature of reality, provide less and less 'meaning' for the ordinary person. Science will become increasingly abstract, inelegant, specialized, dynamic and complex.
The greater descriptive and predictive value of scientific advances hasn't translated into a better understanding of the universe for ordinary people, and even educated people in the 21st century have difficulty in conveying the same general grasp of the current scientific theories that their similarly-intelligent-and-educated grandparent would, of their day.
Religion, in contrast, is concrete, elegant, unchanging, universalized and simple.
