(October 28, 2016 at 5:30 am)Sal Wrote: I see you got ThePrick (apt name, tbh) over from atheistforums.com
He won't be posting again.
Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: May 23, 2024, 4:07 pm
Thread Rating:
|
Why I Don't Want To Be An Atheist
|
 He won't be posting again.
 (October 31, 2016 at 2:39 am)Fake Messiah Wrote:(October 28, 2016 at 2:46 pm)Drich Wrote: Well Atheism is a religion as well. It has an orgins story, It mandates one take a position on God, it shares common core beliefs and systems of belief. It even has 'churches of sorts..' I think you missed the taking to task of all your peers, so i will gladly give you the highlights. The problem with most closed minded people (you/people like you) is that you have your own definations to common everyday words like in this case 'religion.' In all honesty it is not too far off from the orginal defination, but here's the catch or rather here is where your fault is. You are closed minded. meaning your mind is closed to any other defination of the word religion than what you have ascribed to it. For instance look at how you identify religion: Quote:You just proclaim science as just another false religion like Islam, Hare-Krishna, Catholicism... One you believe all religion is false, two you wrongfully assume all religion is a form of deity worship, three you wrongfully assume all religion is organized. Now the question should be what do you base this on, what reference material do you use to support this definition.. The answers to those question can be found in your common everyday usage of that word. The problem??? You assumed wrongly that your definition is the only definition of said word and will not entertain any other which makes you the uneducated/uneducated twit sport, not me. Here is the defination of religion I was using: Search Results re·li·gion rəˈlijən/ noun noun: religion
So now let critically look at the definition you were using verse the dictionary definition: You think all religion is false, That all religion is a form of deity worship that all religion is organized. As the above three aspects are I mentioned are shared by the examples you gave in your statement. As you can see in the dictionary definition, where a religion is true or not makes it no more or less of a religion. Religion is a form of worship/a practice with its creed and ritual it does not have to include a deity. Bushido is an excellent example of a deity-less religion. it is the worship of a code defining a system of honor. You think all religions (again per your failed examples) are organized. Meaning all religions have to conform to a strict lists of do's and don'ts, and have organized meetings. When in fact much like atheism simple spiritualism focuses on it's own lists and do not require weekly meetings. Yet by all practical aspects does indeed qualify to be a religious effort. which makes it's followers apart of a religious movement or all part of a religion. Like it or not sport, atheism is a religion if you are willing to open you mind up to the possibility that your definition of the word religion is not complete. that the dictionary definition is indeed broad enough to encompass your beliefs and the rules that define your system of belief as being religious in nature. Because as I have demonstrated faith is indeed involved in what you believe as what you believe in not static. it is ever changing and it takes faith to believe what you currently believe about the nature of the word around you is indeed truth and will not be usurped by some other theory tomorrow. You have a collective creed, in that universally you all believe God in any form does not exist, and whether you can see it or not. anyone who opposes the doctrine of science and no God can also tell you that you all do have an active ritualistic methodology that you use to try and debunk anyone who stands in direct opposition to you. You also use this methodology to reassure yourselves of your creed when ever one of you is rocked hard by an argument. (you tried this here with me despite the evidence to the contrary.) You all use terms like 'uneducated, irrational, sheeple ' to systematical tear down any form of belief/arguemnt that is not consistent with your creed, despite what is actually said. Do you understand what I said there? No matter what the christian has to say, your answer will ultimately boil down to a singular methodology of ad hoc/ad hom attacks on the individual. after almost 10 years of doing this I have yet to even hear of an atheist that is involved in a discussion that had not ultimately end with the atheist walking away dismissing whatever that was said without the use of this methodology to reset his beliefs/creed.. If you can stay focused all of those thing point out a system of worship to your deity-less religion. again like bushido it is a practice of personal belief and a quasi honor system. But never the less a religion all the same. Now I know your goto is to trivialize me or put me down in someway so you do not have to address the points i made, the definitions I used and the examples I gave to back those definitions up. Never the less I challenge you to meet me line by line fact by fact and show me where I am wrong. Put down all of the pomp and puffed up pageantry you guys typically use, and factually deconstruct my argument. At least try and fill the shoes you paint for yourself/being intellectually superior. Show me something more that stereotypical atheist methodology and meaningless insults. let's go land shark lets see what your made of.. Or are you another mindless millennial who can only think in the way of memes others have posted pinterest? 
LastPoet
 Leader of the gang of jerkoffs(tm)  Religious Views: L'Uomo verrà portato dalla sua creazione
Drich, you are here long enough and posted enough to be considered the ultimate example of religion does. A live testimony, but not for the reasons you think.
You have proven time and time again that you are not worth anything than derision. There are wiser theists that deserve respect, you are not one of them. Ultimately, you should do your preaching amongst those that already believe like you do. You picked a tough crowd, don't moan over seiing your bullshit refuted.  RE: Why I Don't Want To Be An Atheist
November 1, 2016 at 5:56 am
(This post was last modified: November 1, 2016 at 7:43 am by Fake Messiah.)
So you first say:
(October 31, 2016 at 4:24 pm)Drich Wrote: One you believe all religion is false, two you wrongfully assume all religion is a form of deity worship, And then indeed you negate yourself by quoting some unnamed dictionary (October 31, 2016 at 4:24 pm)Drich Wrote: a particular system of faith and worship. So it is system of worship after all, even according to you. But let's look at a dictionary with real credibility, like "Oxford" dictionary, what it says about religion: The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/religion And indeed you are uneducated, it is easily visible from your post that you never read a science book in your life. Whenever someone writes that science is a religion, that atheism is a religion, that evolution has no evidence means that he or she is uneducated dumbass. Especially you who cites christian websites as source. (October 31, 2016 at 4:24 pm)Drich Wrote: Bushido is an excellent example of a deity-less religion Bushido is a way of living, similar to being vegan. It's not a religion. But it is hard to talk to person like you who has such subjective look on reality, where you only believe what you want to believe despite the facts and evidence. Like you're probably the only one in the world that believes that Bushido is a religion, concluding that by taking half definitions from dictionary and mixing it with stuff you simply make up. Now that is stupid and you are stupid. You may not be genetically stupid, maybe you need to educate yourself and learn how to think, but again if you feel content toward science books because you think they're false religion you fall back in your magic circle of stupidity. Try with reading Dawkins' "Magic of Reality" (October 31, 2016 at 4:24 pm)Drich Wrote: Which we know to be the case as theories based on the scientific method are always changing. Science changes and upgrades, but difference is that religious person stubbornly believes in an old science. If you're a christian or Jew you believe in ancient Egyptian science how the world was created, because books of creation in the bible were based on ancient Egyptian and Babylonian sciences on that matter. Long time ago people believed that world is flat and that was also scientific worldview, but bad and outdated now. It was also considered that Sun was god Apollo that rode his flaming chariot, but then Anaximander did some experiments and concluded it was false and world is not flat. So unintentionally he killed a god Apollo. Science changed, but some religious people, like Bible literalists still believe stubbornly that archaic science, just like you believe wizard created universe in 6 days. So yes science changes but it will never change in a way that it turns out wizard created universe in 6 days, just like it won't turn again that the world is flat or there is no Sun but Apollo in flaming chariot.
teachings of the Bible are so muddled and self-contradictory that it was possible for Christians to happily burn heretics alive for five long centuries. It was even possible for the most venerated patriarchs of the Church, like St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, to conclude that heretics should be tortured (Augustine) or killed outright (Aquinas). Martin Luther and John Calvin advocated the wholesale murder of heretics, apostates, Jews, and witches. - Sam Harris, "Letter To A Christian Nation"
 (October 31, 2016 at 2:04 pm)Drich Wrote: You can fix ignorance, you can't fix stupid. Tinkety Tonk and down with the Nazis.  (October 31, 2016 at 2:04 pm)Drich Wrote:(October 30, 2016 at 7:14 am)downbeatplumb Wrote: Science is a way to assess evidence without letting your preconceived ideas or prejudices get in the way of establishing the facts. Of course you wont like it, preconceived ideas and prejudices are all you have.That's crap. Let look at the scientific method. You don't know the first thing about the scientific method Drich. 1) Look at the evidence. 2) Form a hypothesis. 3) Make testable predictions. 4) NOW TEST THOSE PREDICTIONS. (You conveniently forgot this bit) 5) If the experiments succeeded then the hypothesis is likely to be correct. 6) If the experiments failed then you have more evidence and can go back to step 1 What's more, the whole system is set up so that everybody is trying to find flaws in what everyone else is proposing. And when you do come up with a hypothesis that succeeds, you can then use the knowledge for practical purposes. This is why we have engineering and medicine. Things that work in practice. If the scientific method was nothing more than an honour or faith system as you claim, the modern world would not exist and we wouldn't be chatting about this on a discussion forum. RE: Why I Don't Want To Be An Atheist
November 1, 2016 at 12:07 pm
(This post was last modified: November 1, 2016 at 12:10 pm by Drich.)
(November 1, 2016 at 5:58 am)downbeatplumb Wrote: What your entire thing boils down to is you do not understand science.I did a long post refuting you point by point but lost it in a windows related accident.Tell me again how your use of this of this ad hom is not a kneejerk ritualistic act. Rather than show a descrepency in my understanding of science you just make the accusation. (watch how this next part is done sport I challenged you to go line by line, even if you did have an accident you could have at least supported any assertion you made with some kind of evidence breaking my definition of faith in science being it's own religion.Quote:So let me summarize what I wrote.It seems you do not understand what I said nor the examples i gave. I acknowledge your idealist version of science. You correctly outlined what science is supposed to be via the scientific method. However that does not reflect the reality of it all. There is a documentary call particle fever: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDDyOFvU4Pg found it for you. it is a long movie but explain the higgs boson particle/the search for it more over the information they had before the Hadrian super collider was built, and followed the scientists at cern for little over a year after. It goes into detail what was discovered and what the cern scientists did to protect their grant money. Then google higgs boson found 2013, or higgs boson nobel prize.. Then google: higgs boson fraud 2014. IF you were to take the time to read all of the related material and compare it to what the documentary shows/claims they knew before the super colider was built you would come to a stark conclusion.. They simply reworded their original information/research to fit the higgs boson theory! The 2014 expose done by the huffington post even reports this, which invalidates everything that was claimed in 2013. and even the nobel prize. What does this mean to your ideology concerning the use of the scientific method? It's all pie in the sky sport. The way science really works more closely follows a R&D business model than the scientific method. "scientist" pitch or sell an idea to a benefactor and then have to produce what they pitched. In the level of the higgs boson only a hand full of people in the world could know where or not what they were doing was factual or not. Those 'scientist' sold a government and several other benefactors a multi BILLION dollar piece of equipment. Because of this they had to produce something in line with what was sold. So they put lipstick on the pig they already had and everyone else was all but willing to accept it with out question. EVEN the Nobel commity. Your next question should be why would the Nobel commity issue a prize based on junk science. Because the scientific community has been conditioned to take ON FAITH, anything packaged a certain way. meaning if it has been published in the correct journals, if it has the right scientific seals of approval and so on. It is a matter of great faith that all that vetting is indeed done by your holistic version of how 'science/scientific method' works. But again, the great problem? when billions upon billions have been spent honor and integrity goes out the window for funding. You can not deny this no matter how much you want to. Why? because scientists who fail to meet their goals/projections are discredited and their life's work is cast aside. They are made a joke of the scientific community (see the original cern nobel prize winning scientists now) Now, again, if this (scientist are whoring themselves and their junk science out for funding) happens here in the top echelon of your precious 'science'.. how much more susceptible is the 'science' that says a stegosaurus looks the way we have depicted in our museums, or a on this one museum funded dig we find the 'missing link' or if we launch a telescope into space we always find the theorized celestial object, on and on? Science is a whore sold to whomever think they can benefit from discovery, which makes scientist bias to their theories. Theories that do not change unless (as with the scientist at cern) are forced by the community at large to retract what they claim. It is all one big money game. Who ever has the money creates the scientific narrative. That my naive friend is how your precious 'science/religion' works. Quote:Religions, on the other hand, reject any evidence that does not fit their own narrative.Some religions do indeed. Science or the religious following behind 'science' are no different. Quote:Science can absolutely explain love.no, science can identify some of the physical aspects of eros (passionate love) but not what makes a person love meaning all aspects of love is lost on them. Now I ask you honestly, who has a better understanding of science? they guy who holds up an idealistic pie in the sky example with no proof or did not bother to refute what was used to topple his argument. Or the person who has cited several sources that shows scientists on the highest level selling their scientific integrity to secure more funding? I know you in your mind wants to call me a name, or attack me personally so you can dismiss what I said without doing your due diligence/looking at the topic any more closely than you did when you put your two cents in to begin with. But, again I challenge you to open your mind a little and consider what i have said. to the point rather than move to dismiss with some trivial stereotypical atheist insult, watch the video, read the articles and form a conclusion based on the EVIDENCE rather than "reject any evidence that does not fit their/your own narrative." Do you not see your own blind faith in the purity of science makes you a devout religious nut job? 
Does anybody actually read the utter cunt that happens when Drippy posts?
You may refer to me as "Oh High One."
(October 31, 2016 at 4:35 pm)LastPoet Wrote: Drich, you are here long enough and posted enough to be considered the ultimate example of religion does. A live testimony, but not for the reasons you think.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... How is that being refuted? Just because in your mind you have 'reset' the argument and you are back in the same position when you entered this argument does not mean my argument has been refuted. No all it means is you like your peers have a very closed minded world view. In my time here i have found that most atheist like will gladly go toe to toe so long as deep specifics are not addressed. You want to be the lazy suedo intelectuals who just spout the popular arguements based on christian sterotypes.. None of you really want to go out on a limb and be caught thinking for yourselves. So, If/when the conversation gets too deep or if I happen to truly shake a core belief then, like you just did. you all default to a ritualistic tear down of the individual and never ever address the points... It's like in your own little world, in those tightly closed minds if you can discredit or call them a name, somehow you win, and you do not have to address what has been said. which is just fine if you are a devoutly religious person, but how can one claim to be the progressive yet not be willing to even broach the subject topically? Are you admitting that I am right and atheism is nothing more than another world religion??? Or are you a denier of the faith but will practice by calling me names rather than answer the question? Bottom line: You made NO attempt to even speak topically, rather you move straight to a personal attack. Again mr. thinker mr. progressive, how can you claim an open mind if you are not willing to topically participate in the discussion? What say you Mr. Pussycat? whoa whoa, what say you pussy cat???? 
(November 1, 2016 at 5:56 am)Fake Messiah Wrote: So you first say:Awe, it's that so cute.. someone what to try and call my bluff. here is where my defination came from: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/religion So from the Oxford: (just below the bit you quoted.) 1.1A particular system of faith and worship. Wuuuutttt????? It's the same word for word definition I used!!! How stupid are you?!!?! IF you saw my defination word for word in what you looked up what assume that I am making crap up and then cut and paste a friggen link to my own word???? Did you REALLY think i just pulled some random defination out of the air that happened to be a word for word match, THEN post a link to it as if I wasn't going to check???? Imagine that... Are you trying to be intellectually dishonest here/Suppressed correlative? Or maybe you simply don't know how dictionaries work... I like to assume the best in you 'good people' so to me it is far less shameful to not know how a dictionary works that to be as intellectually dishonest as you'd have to be to intentionally try and fool me out of a defination I pulled from your same source material. (I refuse to believe any of you are that friggen stupid.) So Here's a crash course sport. the 1st defination is also called the primary defination, it is the defination most used or assoceiated with this word. the subsequent definations are also valid interpretations of said word. Ok so I was not using the god angle I was using the fanatical devotion to a system of faith and worship. Even defined the word worship, because i knew if you did not know the word faith had more than one valid meaning then you would not understand any of the tertiary meanings to the word worship as well. I even used bushido as a contempary form of religion not devoted to a deity. Can't really argue the point as bushido is indeed considered a religion even though it has nothing to do with deity worship. As it is born out of Confucianism, Shintoism and Buddhism. (again all three have no deity worship involved but are religions.) THAT IS THE REASON FOR THE ALTERNATE DEFINITIONS YOU IDIOT! Not all religions center themselves around a god or gods!!! So your knee jerk definition of religion is indeed partially true as I pointed out. but again to deny the secondary and tertiary definations is... not smart. Quote:And indeed you are uneducated, it is easily visible from your post that you never read a science book in your life.says the fool who does not know how a dictionary works!!!  Quote:Whenever someone writes that science is a religion, that atheism is a religion, that evolution has no evidence means that he or she is uneducated dumbass. Especially you who cites christian websites as source.OMG your just making stuff up now huh???You didn't even read what I wrote did you? yet you think you can still hang... Awe I'm flattered that you'd put me up there with you, but next time you might want to actually read a little more before you run off half cocked. (you make it too easy for me to make you look foolish) (October 31, 2016 at 4:24 pm)Drich Wrote: Bushido is an excellent example of a deity-less religion Quote:Bushido is a way of living, similar to being vegan. It's not a religion. But it is hard to talk to person like you who has such subjective look on reality, where you only believe what you want to believe despite the facts and evidence. Like you're probably the only one in the world that believes that Bushido is a religion, concluding that by taking half definitions from dictionary and mixing it with stuff you simply make up. Now that is stupid and you are stupid. You may not be genetically stupid, maybe you need to educate yourself and learn how to think, but again if you feel content toward science books because you think they're false religion you fall back in your magic circle of stupidity. Try with reading Dawkins' "Magic of Reality"if you want to argue the finer points of Bushido then I provided 3 other indisputable religions you can chew on to process my larger point. (October 31, 2016 at 4:24 pm)Drich Wrote: Which we know to be the case as theories based on the scientific method are always changing. Quote:Science changes and upgrades, but difference is that religious person stubbornly believes in an old science.Show me in the definition of religion where this statement is made as a qualifier to be 'religious.' Quote:If you're a christian or Jew you believe in ancient Egyptian science how the world was created, because books of creation in the bible were based on ancient Egyptian and Babylonian sciences on that matter.actually you dont. Quote: Long time ago people believed that world is flat and that was also scientific worldview, but bad and outdated now. It was also considered that Sun was god Apollo that rode his flaming chariot, but then Anaximander did some experiments and concluded it was false and world is not flat. So unintentionally he killed a god Apollo. Science changed, but some religious people, like Bible literalists still believe stubbornly that archaic science, just like you believe wizard created universe in 6 days.My veiws have been posted a few weeks of my membership here and it does not include a 6 day creation cycle. My view encompasses a 6 day creation and incorperates as many of the bazillions of years your 'science' also needs. In essence it makes any number 'science' or d-bags like you throw out completely moot without changing one word of the text. Quote:So yes science changes but it will never change in a way that it turns out wizard created universe in 6 days, just like it won't turn again that the world is flat or there is no Sun but Apollo in flaming chariot.but that's the thing isn't it... You can't ever say science can never say a wizard did or did not do anything... You only have faith in the way things are going... If you were a true worshiper you would have to simply follow wherever the evidence leads. |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
![[Image: 146748944129044_zpsomrzyn3d.gif]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i629.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fuu13%2FRXM843%2F146748944129044_zpsomrzyn3d.gif)
![[Image: TbxGlR4k.jpg]](https://i.imgbox.com/TbxGlR4k.jpg)
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
