Why I Don't Want To Be An Atheist

[Whateverist]

Drich, you're such a dumb shit. Knowing nothing and understanding nothing never stopped you from running your mouth it seems. Too bad I know the scientific field in question inside out and am happy to confirm that, yes, you're a lying idiot who still wouldn't understand what the science which you claim is a fraud is even about, even if they blew it up your behind.

I can only assume that you are equally astonishingly ignorant about many of the other topics you like to pontificate about, which makes sense in hindsight.

Not really fair to Vorlon to get him all hot and bothered if you don't intend to follow through.

[Alex K]

Drich, you're such a dumb shit. Knowing nothing and understanding nothing never stopped you from running your mouth it seems. Too bad I know the scientific field in question inside out and am happy to confirm that, yes, you're a lying idiot who still wouldn't understand what the science which you claim is a fraud is even about, even if they blew it up your behind.

I can only assume that you are equally astonishingly ignorant about many of the other topics you like to pontificate about, which makes sense in hindsight.

unsupported rant.

Take a step back 'EMH Doctor' from STV.

You are ignoring sourced material for your word your personal take. What makes you think being so close to the action, it hasn't tainted your view? If your view is not tainted then why have You followed the same protocol I have identified as the typical atheist/science character assignation and dismissal, so you do not have to address the actual talking points?

Rather you simply put forth your 'word' as your own standard. but again if you are the embodiment of the problem I am describing the wouldn't your personal feelings/rant also be out of perspective?

Look I get it, you don't want to have to legitimately establish all of the fail safes and protocols you depend on to ensure that your whole life's dedication is valid. Or maybe it's even simpler than that.. You perceive what I said as a personal attack and you are responding in kind. Which to a rational mind should be a giant red flag, because it shows that you have adopted a blind closed minded faith. Meaning you can not objectively question yourself without becoming irrational.

Whatever the case your rant is unsupported and is easily dismissed.

If you are a 'scientist' time to step up your game, or sit down mud duck.

What sourced material? That feature documentary you linked? Was that supposed to show that the science is a hoax? I'm confused as to how you would conclude that.

In any case, your nonsensical strategy of dismissing anyone who is actually knowledgeable as being "too close to the action" is only accomplishing one thing, sinking you deeper into silly conspiracy theories.

[Edwardo Piet]

That was rather rude of you. You're hardly following Christ's example or turning the other cheek are you? You're rude at best and morally reprehensible at worst.

Hardly is an overstatement. Heaps of atheists follow "Christ's" example better than he does.

Perhaps I was highly understanding "you're the exact opposite of following Christ's example" as "hardly following"... but perhaps not... simply because some interpretations of the Bible seems to demonstrate that Jesus may have been a massive cunt. "I come to bring not peace but a sword" "Leave your families", etc.

[LastPoet]

again you like the other two, simply make an empty attempt to discredit me personally, but do not actually address the content of my message...

Oh you don't need me for that. About content, its just as void as your mind.

[Angrboda]

That's an alternative theory set with very little support.  It's basically all the same theory.  They propose a new fundamental force that nobody has ever caught wind of.  That's weak, Drich.  That some yahoos have a fringe theory which also accounts for the data does not deserve the words fraud or debunked.  And I don't give a damn how the Higgs researchers dealt with their funding, it's your word as a science ignoramus that it impacted the results.

That's where you are wrong. My word is not part of this equation. My 'word' is only used to direct you to the paper that debunks the 'H/B' only discovery. the article that says the Nobel prize was issued because it was thought that proof of the particle was found, and to the documentry that says another version of the research was used to secure funding for the CERN project.

First off, you're misconstruing what the discovery at CERN represents.  It's not a "H/B only" claim.  There will always be alternative theories that fit the data.  What the scientists at CERN did was come to a consensus that the Higgs Boson had been found.  Your introducing words like 'only' and proof is just strawmanning the process.  End of story.

You keep quoting this one story from this one group of scientists like it's going to make your claims. It doesn't.

THAT IS MY CLAIM!!!

How are you this dense?

I'm not going to play a game of rhetorical Chinese fire drill with your various claims.  You used the words fraud and debunked, neither of which you've managed to substantiate.  The rest is just conspiracy theory ranting.

 They've got an alternative theory of what the CERN team discovered.  Well whoopity doo, theories are like opinions, everybody's got one.  Simply having an alternative, poorly supported theory does not 'debunk' the CERN data.  I did my due diligence, you're the one who failed.  You see what the scientists have done through your own particular lense but you've failed to actually document that there was anything wrong with what they did.  And this single point theory of yours doesn't wash either because there were two separate experiments conducted at CERN, by different teams of people, and they agreed on the final result.

As stated, you're ranting, making bold claims about corruption in science, but when asked for the evidence, it doesn't live up to your hype.

Again you missed the boat. I am not nor do I care anything about the higgs boson. That subject is only the vehicle used to frame the topic of discussion.

So one more time I am pointing to the lack of 'peer' review/accountability at this 'scientific' level. For example you point to the one article that opposes the cern findings. Who then besides the cern scientists object to the findings in the linked paper or subsequent article?

Are you starting to get it yet?

What I get is that you're changing the subject.  You made an implicit claim that the scientists at CERN were guilty of fraud.  Despite all your tap dancing, you've yet to back that up with anything more than conspiracy theory bullshit.

Can you see where the faith comes in and fills all those gaps in 'science?'

I can see a bullshit semantic argument in my future.  You're equivocating with two different meanings of the word faith.

 That isn't corruption, that's basing one discovery upon prior discoveries.  That's the way it works.

Actually it doesn't work that way. As what was found was not based on prior discoveries but in fact the same data repackaged. again watch the video.

So says you, with a bunch of empty conspiracy theory talk thrown in for good measure.
 

None of this shows corruption in scientific discoveries or that science is a religion.

then you are delusional. Cern represented 'evidence' that convulsively proved the Higgs Boson theory. Aside from the huffie article that says this was the repersentation of the cern discover, we have the nobel committee who was fooled into thinking this, and we have a paper that refutes thenotion that the data compiled can only be used to proove the existence of the H/B.

That.. my confused forum mate, shows a deliberate deception by the CERN scientists. Do you really need some higher authority article to make that judgement call for you? can't you make that call? Are you so brain washed as to think that The cern Scientists IF they were wanting to be 100% truthful at the time the Nobel committee selected Higgs and Boson to receive the prize they would have stepped up and said, "wait a minute, these findings could also support 1/2 a dozen other theories even theories that directly contradict the H/B theory..."
but they didn't.
By not recognizing the failure of the nobel committee made in awarding the wrong people the 2014 award, you selectivly changed the prameters of the arguement to be more agreeable to what you want to believe.. because you cut out the evidence that showed corruption.
Is this what you are passing as critical thought now a days?

Fuck off and die.  I know that you are convinced.  But the evidence you have doesn't raise it to the level you think it does.

Your efforts to suppress this truth is what makes your whole synopsis delusional at best.

Your paranoid rantings do not define truth.

 Science isn't an object of worship by the masses.  It's an object of respect, respect that has been earned, by producing the goods.  Perhaps the cutting edge stuff is more speculative than you'd like, but that's the nature of the beast.  It doesn't impugn the reputation of science in the way you think it does.

define worship.
Merrium-webster:
3
:  a form of religious practice with its creed and ritual

4
:  extravagant respect or admiration for or devotion to an object of esteem

Both definitions (2:4) fit.

Faith is at the core of my arguement against science.

It takes an equal if not a larger amount of faith in science to accept it as the gospel truth, as it takes to belief in God.

Faith is what has blended all of the corruption I provided evidence for, faith is what got you to purposly ignore what the Nobel committee was lead to believe and faith is what is going to get you to call me names and try yet another time to discredit me as an individual 'unworthy' of blaspheming your beliefs, so you can reset yourself and pretend none of what I said matters.

That is the same Kind of scarry 'faith' the westbro baptists have.

And here we have the inevitable semantic argument.  Piss off.  If you want to show that science is a religion, do it using something like Ninian Smart's dimensions of religion.  I'm not going to argue with you based on your warped misuse of a second rate dictionary.  It's a waste of time and proves nothing.

Better yet, let me do it for you.

Ritual: Forms and orders of ceremonies (private and/or public) (often regarded as revealed) Nope.

Narrative and Mythic: stories (often regarded as revealed) that work on several levels. Sometimes narratives fit together into a fairly complete and systematic interpretation of the universe and human's place in it. Nope.

Experiential and emotional: dread, guilt, awe, mystery, devotion, liberation, ecstasy, inner peace, bliss (private) For some, but in general, no.

Social and Institutional: belief system is shared and attitudes practiced by a group. Often rules for identifying community membership and participation (public) Yes.

Ethical and legal: Rules about human behavior (often regarded as revealed from supernatural realm) A big negative.

Doctrinal and philosophical: systematic formulation of religious teachings in an intellectually coherent form.  Despite popular misrepresentation, real science does not follow a specific systematic formulation.  Telling what is and is not science is a well worn issue in the philosophy of science.

Material: ordinary objects or places that symbolize or manifest the sacred or supernatural.  Nope again.

So on Ninian Smart's 7 dimensions of religion, science scores a whopping 1 out of 7.

Case closed.

[Faith No More]

Damn, I really wish I could give that post several kudos. Nice one, jor.

[Angrboda]

Well now I've watched the video and come to a conclusion, Drich. You're on crack. It doesn't show any of the things you claimed it showed. You're either a warped liar or the biggest nutjob I know.

[The Grand Nudger]

There's no need to choose between the two, lol.

[Asmodee]

Ooh, poor Drich. Hang in there, buddy. You know a guy is getting frustrated and utterly bashed in a forum when he uses multiple laughing emojis in a post to prove just how un-frustrated he is.

[Crossless2.0]

Ooh, poor Drich.  Hang in there, buddy.  You know a guy is getting frustrated and utterly bashed in a forum when he uses multiple laughing emojis in a post to prove just how un-frustrated he is.

I, on the other hand, like to reserve multiple laughing emojis for when a member crows about the quality of the shitty sources he brings to a discussion and didn't understand in the first place, ignores relevant sources others present to rebut his claims, and then doubles down on his false talking points. Here's to Drich, our resident chess-playing pigeon: