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: November 16, 2024, 6:46 am
Thread Rating:
Is atheism a scientific perspective?
|
RE: Is atheism a scientific perspective?
December 23, 2016 at 5:42 pm
(This post was last modified: December 23, 2016 at 5:42 pm by Edwardo Piet.)
(December 23, 2016 at 5:41 pm)RozKek Wrote:(December 23, 2016 at 5:36 pm)AAA Wrote: That's just an assertion. How is that what the evidence points to? Small changes in phenotype can easily be explained as a product of epigenetic inheritance which is influenced by the environment. This is a classic example of where speculation by scientists gets interpreted as fact by the outsider. (December 23, 2016 at 3:07 pm)AAA Wrote: Well I disagree that there is not evidence. Do you agree that nature exhibits evidence of design at least? (December 23, 2016 at 3:11 pm)AAA Wrote:(December 23, 2016 at 3:10 pm)Aoi Magi Wrote: NOPE Whoa - careful where you're putting that burden pf proof; you're gonna have someone's eye out!
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
(December 23, 2016 at 6:06 pm)AAA Wrote:(December 23, 2016 at 5:41 pm)RozKek Wrote: No, that is what evidence points to. Evidence which the god hypothesis does not have. LMAO.
No, atheism is not related to science. Atheism is simply a rejection of a claim. Atheism also is unrelated to evolution, so you attacking that scientific fact isn't going to accomplish a damn thing.
Also, no, we don't have to fill in the gap to reject your claim. Asking us "well what else caused all this then?" does not require us to answer a damn thing in order to not accept your bullshit. If you want us to believe a damn thing you do, then come here with the evidence to back that up. RE: Is atheism a scientific perspective?
December 23, 2016 at 6:20 pm
(This post was last modified: December 23, 2016 at 6:23 pm by Chas.)
(December 23, 2016 at 3:15 pm)purplepurpose Wrote: I noticed that, atheists are so discouraged by a brutal worldview of theists(burn or serve), that they are ready to endlessly hide under the scientific material worldview, until actual God shows up. Pro tip: God's not going to show up. (December 23, 2016 at 3:31 pm)purplepurpose Wrote:(December 23, 2016 at 3:19 pm)Anomalocaris Wrote: Let your god show up, then. What pitiful morons you are to be so attached to an nonexistent notion that you see its manifestation in everything just so you can believe it. An even slightly intelligent designer would have made an infinitely better you than the squeaking wishthinking diot you actually are.I didn't say I was a worshiping any God. The problem with theism is that theist wastes time and effort better used trying to become a more caring person, while an atheist already is one.
Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method. RE: Is atheism a scientific perspective?
December 23, 2016 at 6:26 pm
(This post was last modified: December 23, 2016 at 6:28 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
(December 23, 2016 at 5:21 pm)AAA Wrote: Ok, what's another cause that is capable? Other than the evidenced cause, you mean? It wouldn't and doesn't matter. The question is malformed and uniformative regardless. "If not god than what" ignores demonstrable fact, and even if it didn't...would amount to no more than a failure of your own imagination.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
(December 23, 2016 at 3:57 pm)AAA Wrote:(December 23, 2016 at 3:27 pm)zebo-the-fat Wrote: Never mind cells, look at the human body, is it designed by a god? If it is then the god is useless. Only an idiot would have a common opening for food, water and breathing, any 1st year engineering student could come up with a better design. Would you buy a car with just one opening to fill with fuel, water and air? Or one could try to understand natural selection. You make the same old simplistic argument looking only at end products instead of the process of evolution.
Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method. RE: Is atheism a scientific perspective?
December 23, 2016 at 6:35 pm
(This post was last modified: December 23, 2016 at 6:40 pm by AAA.)
(December 23, 2016 at 6:20 pm)Jesster Wrote: No, atheism is not related to science. Atheism is simply a rejection of a claim. Atheism also is unrelated to evolution, so you attacking that scientific fact isn't going to accomplish a damn thing. All I was trying to say was that intelligence is the only known cause capable of producing specified/sequential information. Someone said that was wrong, so I asked them if they know of another cause. I'm not saying that because we don't know how it was done we appeal to God, I'm saying that because we know intelligence is capable, then it is not irrational to conclude that it played a role. What would you consider evidence of design? (December 23, 2016 at 6:28 pm)Chas Wrote:(December 23, 2016 at 3:57 pm)AAA Wrote: How convenient to just ignore cells. We could talk about the cross-talk between signal transduction pathways that allow external signals to change your transcriptional output. We could talk about how cells have regions dedicated to packaging proteins and delivering them to where they need to go. We could talk about the small nucleolar RNAs that direct editing of spliceosomal snRNAs which then cut and rearrange other RNAs which can go on to be translated by the incredibly complex ribosome to make proteins which, by the way were essential for everything I've mentioned so far. I understand natural selection. It isn't a creative force, it just allows the genes of the most reproductively successful to increase in frequency. You assume that the best reproducers are the ones that have deviated more from the norm. |
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Users browsing this thread: 13 Guest(s)