Blind faith and evolution

[popeyespappy]

Not knowing that evolution is an observed fact is a a position based in ignorance.

[MikeTheInfidel]

i posted that before i saw your pope hat, and sure you can use that hypocritical shit with me all you want 'prophet' the guy told me he was going to rush me with his riech that he was building, good luck justifying banning me and i hope you think about how much of a hypocrite you are when you do, goof!

The best response, whenever called out by a mod, is to instantly insult the mod.



Come on, folks, this guy's a troll.

---

He's posted other threads like this, too:
at what point did inorganic matter become organic life forms and what caused it?

This whole time, he's basically been arguing that if he doesn't know something, then nobody does, and it's dogmatic to say that you know something he doesn't.

The big trouble with dumb bastards is that they are too dumb to believe there is such a thing as being smart.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

nah i aint feeling bad for myself, i can admit that i don't know whether a god or gods exist, i feel bad for you.

Wonderful. Another holier than thou agnostic.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism

Oh and where the fuck does evolution and the Big Bang figure into this again?

No, just a troll.

I and countless Other posters have tried to explain to him that atheism is synonomous with nothing except a lack of belief, but he refuses to get it, either because he can't or won't. I explained that I'm an agnostic atheist, and why, and even that simple elucidation went straight over his head. I think he's what many would say is educationally sub-normal.

It's like talking to a particularly ignorant wall. Just ignore him and he'll find somewhere else to troll.

[Cyberman]

i wouldn't try to prove or disprove either, i am comfortable admitting that i don't know.

Oh see, we have to test whether our lack of belief is true but it's ok for you to absent yourself from the experiment? Textbook special pleading.

people have searched, yes, but how far are we? we are still on one planet in a solar system that is one tiny part of a galaxy that is only one little piece of the universe.

Except that the only sort of god entity that can possibly concern us here on this planet is one with some influence, however slight, in our world and its affairs. The effects of such influence have to be detectable and therefore testable, by definition, or else there really is no point even speculating about them. If you want to posit a god or godlike entity somewhere out there in the Universe that's fine, but if we can't detect it and it can't (or won't) interact with us, why should we give a crap about it? The simplest and most intellectually honest position in all such cases is always the null hypothesis.

[Little Rik]

Ok guys, i let you have a verbal scuffle with christcahinkilla for the last 24 hours but now is time to end this sort of mental masturbation that lead nowhere and start talking about serious things.

According to yoga creation and evolution go hand in hand.
There can not be one without the other.
Suppose i am God.
I create the meccano parts (creation) and i want you to put the parts together (evolution).
From my mind i create the space, air, light, water, matter and i want you to work with these elements so the consciousness that transform these elements turn back to me into my mind into my consciousness.
You all are me.
You do not know because that part of my consciousness that i used to create has been through a process of metamorphosis and therefore until you reach higher stages of consciousness you are unable to understand how the whole system works.
However nothing is lost. Sooner or later you will come to realize this truth.

[Kayenneh]

Proof or GTFO.

[Little Rik]

Proof or GTFO.

Proof come as you evolve to higher degree of consciousness.
How you do?
You got to turn your materiality into spirituality.
You got to go through the reverse process or the evolution of the consciousness.
As consciousness is not material or physical you can not see it as evidence in a material-physical form therefore you will waste your time in search of material-physical evidence.
Does this mean that does not exist?
No, it only means that by pretending to use a tool that can not work in this arena you waste your precious time in vain.

[Psykhronic]

I don't think Enrico knows what proof is.

[Little Rik]

I don't think Enrico knows what proof is.

I don't think Psykhronic knows what is the difference between a proof in a material-physical laboratory and proof inside a mental-spiritual laboratory.

[Simon Moon]

i don't see how you have debated my argument, "i don't believe" is a conclusion, the first step to determining scientific truth is to have a hypothesis and the next is to determine whether it is testable. if not then to have a belief or disbelief (conclusion) is called dogmatism.

Belief or disbelief is NOT a conclusion.

Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proportion or premise to be true.

One does not have to conclude, with absolute certainty, that a god or gods do not exist in order to disbelieve they do. One only has to not hold the premise that they do exist to be true.

There is zero dogma in not believing the claim that a god exists. For the vast majority of atheists, their atheism is a provisional position that is open to change if they become convinced that a god exists.

It could be argued (and rightly so) that claiming to KNOW, with absolute certainty, that a god does not exist is a dogmatic position. But I don't see anyone taking that position, do you?