That challenge is like AF. Every day. I can't wait for gods, I have at the moment, a daughter to raise. In 14 years, things might get worse. Right now, its mom.
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: June 12, 2024, 3:34 am
Thread Rating:
|
Tooth Fairy Bullshit
|
LastPoet
 Leader of the gang of jerkoffs(tm)  Religious Views: L'Uomo verrà portato dalla sua creazione  Quote:Oh, gee, a guy who is championed by Deepak Chopra. Excuse me if I'm unimpressed. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiU5ht5W_lk In Julia Sweeney's monologue "Letting Go of God", she makes an interesting and funny comment reference Deepak Chopra. Her monologue is the best account of a person's path to Atheism that I've ever heard. It's really worth a listen for the humour and entertainment value alone...  (January 17, 2017 at 2:54 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote:(January 17, 2017 at 2:53 pm)Mathilda Wrote: They're only trying to convince themselves. They stop as soon as they satisfy all their own personal doubts. Which means that they stop questioning their own religion when they reach their own personal level of ignorance. . . . by millions and millions of years. *Megaphone preacher's mind blown* (January 17, 2017 at 2:25 pm)robvalue Wrote: We can never know what the "laws of nature" are. We just model them. If something doesn't fit our models, that doesn't mean it's breaking a law of nature. This equivocation seems to be more invulnerable than God. How is it a law, if something breaks it? It's just dumb word games. I would claim that we have a reasonable understanding of the "Laws of Nature" as opposed to an absolute understanding. We can say with reasonable certainty that natural law tells us that a human cannot regrow a severed head. "Absolute" certainty about anything is an intangible concept. We cannot claim to be absolutely certain about anything. However, claiming to be reasonably certain about natural law is a valid claim...  RE: Tooth Fairy Bullshit
January 17, 2017 at 4:37 pm
(This post was last modified: January 17, 2017 at 4:41 pm by robvalue.)
Sure, we can be reasonably certain. We're confident because we test it. But when something breaks our models, we can't be the slightest bit confident this is because this thing "breaks the law" rather than us simply not modeling the law correctly. What does it even mean, to break a law? It's a contradiction in terms. Science is right, but science is wrong.
The whole process of science is about refining models. If something is "supernatural" every time it falls outside our current understanding, we'd never get anywhere. No it fucking isn't, get back to work and improve the models. Oh no you're right, we understand it now. This distinction between natural and "supernatural" is entirely arbitrary, and no one except woo-peddlers feel the need to make it. Feel free to send me a private message.
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists. Index of useful threads and discussions Index of my best videos Quickstart guide to the forum  (January 17, 2017 at 12:37 am)The Gentleman Bastard Wrote:(January 16, 2017 at 7:09 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Wrong. Huggy has been told this endless times. Hopefully your analogy will finally get him to see the error in his thinking. Although, I have my doubts. You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence. 
Religitards never catch on. They really think they can argue their silly shit into existence.
 (January 17, 2017 at 4:37 pm)robvalue Wrote: Sure, we can be reasonably certain. We're confident because we test it. But when something breaks our models, we can't be the slightest bit confident this is because this thing "breaks the law" rather than us simply not modeling the law correctly. What does it even mean, to break a law? It's a contradiction in terms. Science is right, but science is wrong. Having holy scriptures inform us that Jesus was crucified on Thursday and Friday seems to transcend both the natural and supernatural and enters the realm of FUBAR. The granting of a pardon is an imputation of guilt, and the acceptance a confession of it.
 (January 17, 2017 at 2:11 pm)Mathilda Wrote:(January 16, 2017 at 8:22 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: However God is a spirit. A spirit does not exist within the laws of nature, it is a supernatural being, and therefore not affected by natural law, particles, fields, or time... Great, isn't it? First he proved, with his own argument, that whatever caused the universe couldn't have been supernatural. Now he's proved that his pet god doesn't exist. He'll have dismantled all religion by Friday.
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.'
 (January 17, 2017 at 2:11 pm)Mathilda Wrote:(January 16, 2017 at 8:22 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: However God is a spirit. A spirit does not exist within the laws of nature, it is a supernatural being, and therefore not affected by natural law, particles, fields, or time... Your logic kinda fails since he's the CREATOR of this reality, and why would the creator be affected by the creation or not be able to interact with it? |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
