This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.5
PTR
10.2.6
What do people think of atheists?
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
ASHelmy
im sorry, but considering religion has id say.. well over billions dead, countless civilizations destruction and hundreds if not thousands of years of oppression id say religion is a bigger problem then peta. now idc about religion but when its used to oppress, kill, destroy, hinder, or disrupt things then its a problem. and as always it is.
Only because religion is of majority, I should think.
There are horrible acts done in the name of science, the biggest examples being in WWII when the axis powers used live people for experiments.
@blademeld: Scientist preceive the evidence logically, religious people just cling to their parent's beliefs, I find it stupid that I have to try and convince my teachers of evolution, just because they cling to myths.
Your logic is your own, you can't force your logic on others, especially when it doesn't make sense to them.
Your perception that evolution is a fact is your perspective, you claiming that it's a myth is also your perspective.
It doesn't have to be the absolute truth, which is what you're implying by stating that it's a fact.
Why isn't it fact? Has it not been proven by countless rigorous experiments and logical facts?
Post by
blademeld
Stop using the word logic.
It's not a fact for me if I say it doesn't make logical sense.
Post by
ASHelmy
Stop using the word logic.
It's not a fact for me if I say it doesn't make logical sense.
Ok, what about all the other data? Fossils, DNA, similarities, carbon dating (to prove the time) and similar behavior? Can you claim that does are invalid too?
Post by
blademeld
Let me break this down for you.
You: it makes sense for me so it must be true!
Me: it doesn't make sense for everyone in the world though therefore it could be false.
You: but scientists have proven it by evidence and thought processes!
Me: that thought process doesn't make sense for everyone in the world, and the evidence is could be misinterpreted.
You: but it makes sense for me!
Me: good for you, but it doesn't make sense for everyone in the world.
What part of that don't you understand?
Post by
ASHelmy
Let me break this down for you.
You: it makes sense for me so it must be true!
Me: it doesn't make sense for everyone in the world though therefore it could be false.
You: but scientists have proven it by evidence and thought processes!
Me: that thought process doesn't make sense for everyone in the world, and the evidence is could be misinterpreted.
You: but it makes sense for me!
Me: good for you, but it doesn't make sense for everyone in the world.
What part of that don't you understand?
The part where you ignore the evidence, it can be misinterpreted, but until such a time as it is proven to be wrong, your point is moot. It's like your are denying the existence of the sun just because " it doesn't make sense to you".
Post by
blademeld
Can you claim that does are invalid too?
Yes, I can claim anything I so wished.
Ok, what about all the other data? Fossils, DNA, similarities, carbon dating (to prove the time) and similar behavior?
Prove to me that carbon dating is consistent through a hundred thousand years of heat and pressure and I'll admit you're right.
And "it has behaved same in a lab test" is not actual proof, but an assumption, a direct proof would be replicating the results.
Post by
Skreeran
Person: I believe that the world is flat.
Me: We know that the world is round!
Person: But the doesn't make sense to me, so it could be wrong.
Me: But the surface of the world is curved!
Person: You may have misinterpreted. Look at the ground. It's flat.
Me: But the laws of gravitation would indicate that matter held together in a round shape!
Person: Good for you, but it doesn't make sense for everyone in the world.
Just saying, "it doesn't make sense to everyone" is not necessarily a good argument.
Post by
blademeld
The part where you ignore the evidence, it can be misinterpreted, but until such a time as it is proven to be wrong, your point is moot. It's like your are denying the existence of the sun just because " it doesn't make sense to you".
I haven't ignored the evidence, rather, I choose not to make assumptions based on circumstantial evidence.
You're denying creationism because it doesn't make sense to you, why can't I do the same?
Are you so superior to me that your own rules don't apply to you?
Post by
ASHelmy
Can you claim that does are invalid too?
Yes, I can claim anything I so wished.
Ok, what about all the other data? Fossils, DNA, similarities, carbon dating (to prove the time) and similar behavior?
Prove to me that carbon dating is consistent through a hundred thousand years of heat and pressure and I'll admit you're right.
And "it has behaved same in a lab test" is not actual proof, but an assumption, a direct proof would be replicating the results.
But of course, you can claim anything you want, that doesn't change the fact that said evidence still exists. (I don't mean to be rude here) But really, what gives you the right to just claim people who studied for 10+ years then did various experiments to proof their point are wrong? Who can you say that scientists like Darwin (who spent 5 years traveling the world to come up with his theory) are mistaken? Also, do you believe in any sort of axioms?
Post by
blademeld
Just saying, "it doesn't make sense to everyone" is not necessarily a good argument.
But you're on that tangent with religion anyways, so why can't I use it?
A perfect god cannot exist because that would be contradictory to your own logic, therefore he cannot exist, how is that any different from what I'm arguing?
Post by
355754
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
blademeld
But really, what gives you the right to just claim people who studied for 10+ years then did various experiments to proof their point are wrong?
Oh look, I've studied Christianity for 15 years, what gives you the right to claim that I'm wrong?
Same right I have.
Of course I believe in axioms, 1 + 1 = 2 in the realm of real numbers, no?
Post by
ASHelmy
But really, what gives you the right to just claim people who studied for 10+ years then did various experiments to proof their point are wrong?
Oh look, I've studied Christianity for 15 years, what gives you the right to claim that I'm wrong?
Same right I have.
Of course I believe in axioms, 1 + 1 = 2 in the realm of real numbers, no?
Good thing you believe in axioms. So I have the right to claim that 1 + 1 =3, but that wouldn't make it correct, right? That's what I am trying to tell you.
Post by
299187
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
blademeld
1 + 1 = 3 outside the real numbers.
It's correct.
Post by
Skreeran
If
there is no god (for the sake of argument), would being a good person matter?
I do not believe so.
Post by
ASHelmy
1 + 1 = 3 outside the real numbers.
It's correct.
I meant in the real numbers.
Post by
Arcage
If
there is no god (for the sake of argument), would being a good person matter?
I do not believe so.
if god is the only reason for someone to be a good person, then i think they need help.
Post by
blademeld
You didn't specify.
Also, say that evolution is 1 + 1 = 2 in the real numbers, why can't I say that there are a wider set of numbers including the set of complex numbers as a reference to the supernatural and hence, even though in perception 1 + 1 = 2, in all reality, 1 + 1 = any number I please?
Post by
TheMediator
if god is the only reason for someone to be a good person, then i think they need help.
If their god tells them to be a good person or they'll go to hell, sure they're being good for the wrong reason, but at least they're being good. Its only a problem when people believe their god is telling them to do bad things that you run into issues.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.