My Fellow Atheist

[fr0d0]

The point is TD you should always try to answer a point rather than resort to insult. It makes you look bad/ as if you can't answer rational argument. On many atheist forums this is the accepted way to deal with theists, whilst they also claim to be clear thinkers. You shouldn't let your frustration lead you into ignorance.

[Edwardo Piet]

False dilemma, I am both an atheist and an agnostic so I won't vote.

[...]I find it interesting that you state your 'beleif' in science, I never thought science required belief to begin with.

Why, do you disbelieve in science? I think not. You aren't a massive conspiracy theorist that thinks science is all bullshit and made up now are you? I know you're not but I think you take my point (I hope).

Belief and disbelief surely is a true dichotomy because disbelief just means not believing, as there is true and untrue, a rock and not a rock. So if you don't believe in science the alternative is to disbelieve it - and that makes a whole lot less sense doesn't it - if you are actually claiming to support science - ?

There are other forms of belief besides religious belief. Religious belief - and other pseudo bullshit belief like "superstition" and pseudo science - is "Faith" I reckon. Not all belief is bullshit and religious....

EvF

[TimeDivider]

False dilemma, I am both an atheist and an agnostic so I won't vote.

[...]I find it interesting that you state your 'beleif' in science, I never thought science required belief to begin with.

Why, do you disbelieve in science? I think not. You aren't a massive conspiracy theorist that thinks science is all bullshit and made up now are you? I know you're not but I think you take my point (I hope).

Belief and disbelief surely is a true dichotomy because disbelief just means not believing, as there is true and untrue, a rock and not a rock. So if you don't believe in science the alternative is to disbelieve it - and that makes a whole lot less sense doesn't it - if you are actually claiming to support science - ?

There are other forms of belief besides religious belief. Religious belief - and other pseudo bullshit belief like "superstition" and pseudo science - is "Faith" I reckon. Not all belief is bullshit and religious....

EvF

I believe in science completely and utterly, did you somehow gather that I did not from my post?

[tackattack]

Perhaps he found fault with your definition of belief.

[chatpilot]

You don't necessarily need to believe in science, many of its assertions have been proven and are objective. So, whether you believe in them or not that does not take away from the fact that they have been proven through rigorous investigations and backed by solid evidence through analytical and experimental processes which can be reproduced by anyone who had the desire to do so.

[Tiberius]

You don't necessarily need to believe in science, many of its assertions have been proven and are objective.

Like what?

[tavarish]

You don't necessarily need to believe in science, many of its assertions have been proven and are objective. So, whether you believe in them or not that does not take away from the fact that they have been proven through rigorous investigations and backed by solid evidence through analytical and experimental processes which can be reproduced by anyone who had the desire to do so.

No they haven't. Science can't prove anything absolutely. What is true for our universe and understanding of the world may not be true for the next universe. Also, there is nothing in science that cannot be refuted with enough evidence. Science gives us the best rational and logical understanding of the world around us, but absolute proof is not its business.

[TimeDivider]

You don't necessarily need to believe in science, many of its assertions have been proven and are objective. So, whether you believe in them or not that does not take away from the fact that they have been proven through rigorous investigations and backed by solid evidence through analytical and experimental processes which can be reproduced by anyone who had the desire to do so.

No they haven't. Science can't prove anything absolutely. What is true for our universe and understanding of the world may not be true for the next universe. Also, there is nothing in science that cannot be refuted with enough evidence. Science gives us the best rational and logical understanding of the world around us, but absolute proof is not its business.

I agree, how can we expect an imperfect human mind to have an absolute understanding of anything? I don't think its possible, but we can come pretty damn close in most respects (evolution being my primary example.)

---

Perhaps he found fault with your definition of belief.

I think so. I have recently redefined belief. I used to think belief and faith were two words, interchangeable with each other. I find that many of the discussions I get into on the topic of god and origins degrade to semantic arguments quickly, which is rather irritating. Yes, I believe that science is the best chance we have at figuring this life out. I believe because there is no viable alternative, and because it never claims absolution. The claim of absolution is the sure sign of a really horrible idea.

[tackattack]

yeah somewhere on here we had a good discussion of belief vs faith. I think it boiled down to: Believe = belief supported with evidence and Faith= belief unsupported by evidence

[chatpilot]

It seems I suffer from this horrible affliction called simplicity. As I always say I don't like to get caught up in stupid arguments that degrade into philosophical garbage. Philosophy has its uses but it is not suitable for many fields of study which in my opinion holds true for theology. Why speculate on a bunch of assertions made in a book written by many authors, most of which are anonymous to this day? The attributes of god the spiritual plane whether he exist outside of time or whether time started when he so called created the universe etc. All a bunch of trash with no basis whatsoever.

Astronomy has shown that the earth is a sphere, it's not flat it's not a square or anything in between what more evidence do you need to accept this as absolute fact. Not only has it been discovered through mathematics and other scientific disciplines but we have put astronauts on the moon and in space that can observe the Earth from their point of view. Any argument against this is a matter of semantics and people who have nothing better to do with their time except speculate on things that make no damn sense at all. It's no wonder that some philosophers and scientists have lost their damn minds, I think that is a result of over thinking too damn much.