(March 15, 2017 at 9:29 am)PETE_ROSE Wrote:

(March 13, 2017 at 7:56 am)Brian37 Wrote: Atlas, nor Muslims or Christians or Jews or Hindus or Buddhists ect ect ect, nobody sees that their arguments ARE NOT different. When the believer, (insert religion here), cant win by directly peddling the holy writings or holy person they follow, they try to debunk science to point to their holy writing/person. When they cant get away with that they try to claim that science matches their holy writing/person. Every religion worldwide has pockets of humans who resort to these tactics. 

My deity is real.
My book says.
My holy writings say.
My holy person says.
My club debunks science.
My club has made scientific discoveries.

There is not one religion in the world who does not have members who make these attempts. Not one.

Funny how no religion in the world can destroy the claims of the others with objectivity and peer review. Arguing a religion is nothing more than apology, an attempt to convince oneself of that to which one has no impartial evidence. Atlas despite all his efforts, has the same problem that GC and CL has, that a Hindu and Buddhist have. Sure you can all accept parts of science, but none of you want to face that science itself has never propped up any religion, because it is a neutral tool, not an apology.

Scientific method does not point to Allah, or Yahweh or Jesus or Vishnu or Apollo. Most humans don't want to face this fact.

---

This is the shit Atlas a Muslim, and GC a Christian and even like I said in  prior posts, even Hindus and Buddhists don't want to face. They all point to their histories and individuals who make scientific discoveries. Ask Atlas and he also will point to his book and say it matches science and point to Muslims whom made scientific discoveries.

Newton got physics right sure, but that does not make the Christian god real. Newton also postulated alchemy for a while and that was absolute garbage. Arabs invented algebra so does that make Allah real if Atlas points to that? By this logic the Greek gods are the real gods because the ancient Greeks were the first to coin and use the word "atom". Funny how neither the Christian or Muslim actually believe that the use of the word "atom" back then meant they knew what an electron or proton or neutron were. Fact is when the Greeks coined that word it was simply a word saying "imagine the smallest thing you cant divide". 

The ancient Egyptians thought the sun was controlled by a deity, they could point to a real sun, but that does not mean because they were master engineers in their building and pretty artwork they knew back then what the chemical makeup of the sun was. Newton advancing some things and being right about some things does not make the God of Jesus the one true god, anymore than the Quran talking about the stars means they knew anything about modern science. 

Spend enough time debating Muslims and Christians and Jews and Buddhists and Hindus, you will find plenty in every religion that claim science is their unique discovery and points to their club.

You omitted yourself Brian and the religion of Atheism.  The exception being your stance is anything but God.  

Spend enough time debating Atheists and Agnostics and Non-Deists and Deist fluids, and you will find plenty in every atheistic denomination that claim their science is their unique discovery and points to their club.

Wow, we have denominations now?!

Wow, we have denominations now?!
[/quote]

Looks like y'all are going to church too. Read that here in another thread. Except its under the guise of social interaction or a gathering of humanists.

Not knocking it in the least. Think it's perfectly fine and addresses a personal need.

(March 15, 2017 at 10:55 am)PETE_ROSE Wrote: Wow, we have denominations now?!

Looks like y'all are going to church too.   Read that here in another thread.  Except its under the guise of social interaction or a gathering of humanists.  

Not knocking it in the least.   Think it's perfectly fine and addresses a personal need.
[/quote]

You're knocking it by calling it a guise.

(March 15, 2017 at 9:29 am)PETE_ROSE Wrote:

(March 13, 2017 at 7:56 am)Brian37 Wrote: Atlas, nor Muslims or Christians or Jews or Hindus or Buddhists ect ect ect, nobody sees that their arguments ARE NOT different. When the believer, (insert religion here), cant win by directly peddling the holy writings or holy person they follow, they try to debunk science to point to their holy writing/person. When they cant get away with that they try to claim that science matches their holy writing/person. Every religion worldwide has pockets of humans who resort to these tactics. 

My deity is real.
My book says.
My holy writings say.
My holy person says.
My club debunks science.
My club has made scientific discoveries.

There is not one religion in the world who does not have members who make these attempts. Not one.

Funny how no religion in the world can destroy the claims of the others with objectivity and peer review. Arguing a religion is nothing more than apology, an attempt to convince oneself of that to which one has no impartial evidence. Atlas despite all his efforts, has the same problem that GC and CL has, that a Hindu and Buddhist have. Sure you can all accept parts of science, but none of you want to face that science itself has never propped up any religion, because it is a neutral tool, not an apology.

Scientific method does not point to Allah, or Yahweh or Jesus or Vishnu or Apollo. Most humans don't want to face this fact.

---

This is the shit Atlas a Muslim, and GC a Christian and even like I said in  prior posts, even Hindus and Buddhists don't want to face. They all point to their histories and individuals who make scientific discoveries. Ask Atlas and he also will point to his book and say it matches science and point to Muslims whom made scientific discoveries.

Newton got physics right sure, but that does not make the Christian god real. Newton also postulated alchemy for a while and that was absolute garbage. Arabs invented algebra so does that make Allah real if Atlas points to that? By this logic the Greek gods are the real gods because the ancient Greeks were the first to coin and use the word "atom". Funny how neither the Christian or Muslim actually believe that the use of the word "atom" back then meant they knew what an electron or proton or neutron were. Fact is when the Greeks coined that word it was simply a word saying "imagine the smallest thing you cant divide". 

The ancient Egyptians thought the sun was controlled by a deity, they could point to a real sun, but that does not mean because they were master engineers in their building and pretty artwork they knew back then what the chemical makeup of the sun was. Newton advancing some things and being right about some things does not make the God of Jesus the one true god, anymore than the Quran talking about the stars means they knew anything about modern science. 

Spend enough time debating Muslims and Christians and Jews and Buddhists and Hindus, you will find plenty in every religion that claim science is their unique discovery and points to their club.

You omitted yourself Brian and the religion of Atheism.  The exception being your stance is anything but God.  

Spend enough time debating Atheists and Agnostics and Non-Deists and Deist fluids, and you will find plenty in every atheistic denomination that claim their science is their unique discovery and points to their club.

How long have you been on this board Pete? You should know better having been a long time member not to repeat or parrot bullshit arguments.

"Atheist" means "off", nothing more than that. We are not a religion, we are not a gang, we are not a political party, we are not an economic view. We are very diverse in our class status from poor and middle and rich, very diverse in our political and economic views and we exist in every nation of every skin tone. WE DO NOT always agree on everything all the time. Please stop repeating a bullshit argument.

"off" is the only thing atheists have in common, outside that, if you want to know what an atheist holds as a position then that subject is particular to that individual. We are not sheep.

(March 15, 2017 at 9:29 am)PETE_ROSE Wrote: the religion of Atheism.

Look up Oxymoron.

(March 15, 2017 at 11:44 am)Brian37 Wrote:

(March 15, 2017 at 9:29 am)PETE_ROSE Wrote: You omitted yourself Brian and the religion of Atheism.  The exception being your stance is anything but God.  

Spend enough time debating Atheists and Agnostics and Non-Deists and Deist fluids, and you will find plenty in every atheistic denomination that claim their science is their unique discovery and points to their club.

How long have you been on this board Pete? You should know better having been a long time member not to repeat or parrot bullshit arguments.

"Atheist" means "off", nothing more than that. We are not a religion, we are not a gang, we are not a political party, we are not an economic view. We are very diverse in our class status from poor and middle and rich, very diverse in our political and economic views and we exist in every nation of every skin tone. WE DO NOT always agree on everything all the time. Please stop repeating a bullshit argument.

"off" is the only thing atheists have in common, outside that, if you want to know what an atheist holds as a position then that subject is particular to that individual. We are not sheep.

I suppose we disagree. You show your bias by claiming arguments that do not support your perception as bs. I wave my bs flag on you sir. Many are sheep. Not all atheists are well grounded in their beliefs just as many of the religious are not in theirs. So again, more bs from the peanut gallery.

(March 15, 2017 at 1:30 pm)PETE_ROSE Wrote:

(March 15, 2017 at 11:44 am)Brian37 Wrote: How long have you been on this board Pete? You should know better having been a long time member not to repeat or parrot bullshit arguments.

"Atheist" means "off", nothing more than that. We are not a religion, we are not a gang, we are not a political party, we are not an economic view. We are very diverse in our class status from poor and middle and rich, very diverse in our political and economic views and we exist in every nation of every skin tone. WE DO NOT always agree on everything all the time. Please stop repeating a bullshit argument.

"off" is the only thing atheists have in common, outside that, if you want to know what an atheist holds as a position then that subject is particular to that individual. We are not sheep.

I suppose we disagree.  You show your bias by claiming arguments that do not support your perception as bs.  I wave my bs flag on you sir.  Many are sheep.  Not all atheists are well grounded in their beliefs just as many of the religious are not in theirs.  So again, more bs from the peanut gallery.

What "beliefs" are we not well grounded in?

(March 15, 2017 at 1:37 pm)Harry Nevis Wrote: What "beliefs" are we not well grounded in?

That's a good question. As it pertains to atheism, I am not grounded in my belief at all. I have no belief to ground.

(March 15, 2017 at 1:53 pm)KUSA Wrote:

(March 15, 2017 at 1:37 pm)Harry Nevis Wrote: What "beliefs" are we not well grounded in?

That's a good question. As it pertains to atheism, I am not grounded in my belief at all. I have no belief to ground.

A lot of linguistic semantics around here. Beliefs. World view. Faith. Every known word can have a different meaning depending on context or other inferences and implication.

If I said white someone would argue that it is not white, merely devoid of color or the opposite of black.

(March 15, 2017 at 2:15 pm)PETE_ROSE Wrote:

(March 15, 2017 at 1:53 pm)KUSA Wrote: That's a good question. As it pertains to atheism, I am not grounded in my belief at all. I have no belief to ground.

A lot of linguistic semantics around here.  Beliefs.  World view.  Faith. Every known word can have a different meaning depending on context or other inferences and implication.  

If I said white someone would argue that it is not white, merely devoid of color or the opposite of black.

Not semantics at all.

In discussions such as these, it is important to agree on how both parties are defining words ahead of time, or else we talk past each other.

As it is, most atheists define atheism as the absence of belief in gods. If you insist that the atheist uses your definition, then you are not engaged with the atheist in the same conversation. If you can't come to agreement on the definition, then the best thing to do is stop using the word, and discuss the concept.

I define atheist as the absence of belief in gods. But I really don't care if you use that definition or not. It is the CONCEPT that is important.

White is not devoid of color, it is the result of all colors being combined.