Satirical logic for the atheistic mind

[Succubus]

I disagree, scientist are drawing conclusions about planets they have never seen, saying they are this or they are that. When in reality they have no clue about those unseen planets. Many scientist today are writing things just to throw papers and information out there so they can claim they were the first to say this or that when and if those things are proven. This comes from scientist that are becoming disappointed by the way science is turning to guessing for the sake of fame.

GC

Musht be shome mishtake.

 So you're saying science is guess work at best, well I have a greater understanding of how science works than you do and for the most part it's not guess work.

GC

You need a good memory to tell lies.

A few weeks back a poster, Vulcan? Suggested GC was an elaborate atheist Poe whose intention was to make devout  believers look silly. I think he was onto something.

[Edwardo Piet]

Science isn't always right. But it is always self-correcting... unlike religion which rather than correcting its mistakes the best it can do is increasingly interpret it less and less literally until it's nothing but a much less pithy and much less moral version of Aesop's fables.

[Drich]

I wrote/copied word for word minus 1 this:

I did want to steal anyone's thunder so I started a new thread for this discussion:

The existence of science proves that everything labeled 'science' or even sciencie is real.

And since SCIENCE is real, there can be no question that what ever SCIENCE Says created the universe and is the only True Statement.

I have presented the evidence to you and any arguments to the contrary are just you in denial and rebellion against these FACTS!

Any honest people seen anything similar recently and can maybe draw a parallel or two that pretty trivializes whatever you believe, because according to this and the other thread our reason to believe are in fact the same, just different in presentation?? 

Of course not.

from this:
https://atheistforums.org/thread-54824.html

The existence of popcorn proves that Poppy the Popcorn God is real.

And since HE is real, there can be no question that HE created the universe and is the only True God.

I have presented the evidence to you and any arguments to the contrary are just you in denial and rebellion against these FACTS!

Now lesson time for the douche baggery that gets paraded around this website is superior intellectual thinking...

Look at how some of your responded when you were talking about popcorn God.

Now look at how the same people responded to popcorn-science....

feel any shame yet?

Do I really need to break down the BS into hypocritical bite size pieces that you must then shallow individually? In how belief in pop corn god was an absurd satirical joke, but to believe or mock science as 'popcorn god.' was beyond anything an "intelligent" should be allowed to do.

When in fact when 'scientific data' boils down to a theory based on a single dimension or a single point of data collection, then belief in 'science really amounts to the belief in a pop corn god. and as such the same sererical argument can be used to mock those who don't even know the blindly follow popcorn science. It take the same if not more faith to follow popcorn science, especially after all the failure popcorn science has predicted/warned us about, in our own world n our own life time, (Mini-Ice age by 2000 due to pollution, deforestation by acid rain in the arctic tundra, hole in the Ozone caused by cfc's global warming, global cooling, global climate change due to carbon surplus,(that can some how be fixed by carbon credits/tax, melting Ice caps (nasa says antarctic Ice growing at crazy rate) let alone what what pop corn science says about planets and galaxies or even the beginning of time.

with a win loss record so bad tell me how one can believe in pop corn science without 100% faith? But that what you brain washed douche bags do. the next time an ex-democratic vice president says the sky is falling, you all will no doubt start buying whatever umbrella he is selling (carbon credits) just because he is smart enough to wrap up his story in a bag of pop corn science.

Don't you blind people see 'science' has become the new unquestionable God?

So what do you all do? you follow like lemmings anything popcorn science demands of you. yet you can not see or will not acknowledge the tremendous amount of faith you all have to expend to maintain your current system of popcorn belief...

Why then is it sooo.. easy for you to see and make fun of the faith of other WHEN YOU ARE PRACTICING THE EXACT SAME THING?!?!?!?!?

[Shell B]

Nobody believes that. The difference between credible scientists (not science because science doesn't say anything) and theists is that scientists agree that their theories are just the best formed conclusions they can make based on observation.

 I disagree, scientist are drawing conclusions about planets they have never seen, saying they are this or they are that. When in reality they have no clue about those unseen planets. Many scientist today are writing things just to throw papers and information out there so they can claim they were the first to say this or that when and if those things are proven. This comes from scientist that are becoming disappointed by the way science is turning to guessing for the sake of fame.

GC

So you know enough about astrophysics to say they’re wrong?

[Shell B]

It’s been a a long time since I’ve stumbled into a drip thread. Still a total cunt, eh?

[Drich]

Science isn't always right. But it is always self-correcting... unlike religion which rather than correcting its mistakes the best it can do is increasingly interpret it less and less literally until it's nothing but a much less pithy and much less moral version of Aesop's fables.

yeah like global Ice age with hole in the ozone which will not allow us to go outside... or better yet carbon emission that cause global warming and melting ice caps, but when the ice caps have been proven to be growing now we got global climate change? self correct is worthless if you go from one wrong answer to another.

It would be like one of you calling me a chink.. then correct your self and call me a gook, then someone else slope or nip... what is the point of 'self correction' if everything you say is wrong?

[FatAndFaithless]

Drich, even for you that last post was incoherent. You and Huggy should duke it out to see who can misunderstand and misrepresent science more.

[Shell B]

Science isn't always right. But it is always self-correcting... unlike religion which rather than correcting its mistakes the best it can do is increasingly interpret it less and less literally until it's nothing but a much less pithy and much less moral version of Aesop's fables.

yeah like global Ice age with hole in the ozone which will not allow us to go outside... or better yet carbon emission that cause global warming and melting ice caps, but when the ice caps have been proven to be growing now we got global climate change? self correct is worthless if you go from one wrong answer to another.

It would be like one of you calling me a chink.. then correct your self and call me a gook, then someone else slope or nip... what is the point of 'self correction' if everything you say is wrong?

You have to be a Poe. Ice caps growing. Lol good one

[Drich]

 I disagree, scientist are drawing conclusions about planets they have never seen, saying they are this or they are that. When in reality they have no clue about those unseen planets. Many scientist today are writing things just to throw papers and information out there so they can claim they were the first to say this or that when and if those things are proven. This comes from scientist that are becoming disappointed by the way science is turning to guessing for the sake of fame.

GC

So you know enough about astrophysics to say they’re wrong?

here's the wonderful thing about that. I don't have to know anything about that or evolution or any of it really. all I need be aware of competing theories, most of which are as plausible if not more so. what makes a given theory mainstream thought is a foolish popularity contest where egg heads in their various fields of expertise vote on which one they like the best. often times the theory with the best funding. IE global warming/al gore.

So you see two theories both plausible.. so what makes you believe one and not the other? Faith. Faith in the mainstream. faith in the top egg heads and their popularity contest.

THAT is all I need to know to make the observation of faith in science.

[The Grand Nudger]

Believer assumes that everyone else must be a believer.   How is this different from assuming that everyone else must love spinach flavored ice cream just because you do?