Atheism and Science

10-02-2010 09:47PM

DogmaticLefty wrote: »

Fixed that for you.

What answers?
That post was before the examples I asked for.

How about you look through your post:

DogmaticLefty wrote: »

Atheism is an ad-hoc network of belief from which patterns emerge. Most religions are organised in top-down hierarchies.

It's all too convenient for atheists to just throw their hands in the air and exclaim "but we're not a religion", "there is no common teaching", etc. I see it all the time. I don't know how anyone can base their lives around such vast uncertainty. The denial of the Divine is another common trait amongst atheists. When a Christian looks into a telescope he sees God's beauty. When an atheist looks at the sky, he pulls out his calculator and gets to work on all the problems he doesn't know the answer to yet. Might as well top yourselves now cos a lifetime divided by the lifetime of the universe tends to nothing.

And highlight the following examples.
Atheist Dogma
Atheist set of morals and ethics
Atheist clergy
Atheist ritual
Atheist holy day
Atheist holy text
Atheist belief on the survival of self after death.

Dades · 10-02-2010 09:47PM

DogmaticLefty wrote: »

When a Christian looks into a telescope he sees God's beauty. When an atheist looks at the sky, he pulls out his calculator and gets to work on all the problems he doesn't know the answer to yet.

And that is why we sit here on computers, in cars, in planes, with pacemakers, without smallpox...

So perhaps we should be grateful for the type of people who whip out calculators.

Flamed Diving · 10-02-2010 09:48PM

DogmaticLefty wrote: »

A fine example of ad-hoc atheism.

So how many human brains do you think it will take before you find out everything there is to know?

What a pointless question.

Flamed Diving · 10-02-2010 09:49PM

DogmaticLefty wrote: »

I am a scientist. :P

So is JC.

DogmaticLefty · 10-02-2010 09:50PM

King Mob wrote: »

And highlight the following examples.
Atheist Dogma
Atheist set of morals and ethics
Atheist clergy
Atheist ritual
Atheist holy day
Atheist holy text
Atheist belief on the survival of self after death.

What are you on about? I never posited any such scenarios.

DogmaticLefty · 10-02-2010 09:51PM

Flamed Diving wrote: »

What a pointless question.

To someone who puts their faith in science, you'd think it was a crucial thing to consider.

10-02-2010 09:52PM

DogmaticLefty wrote: »

What are you on about? I never posited any such scenarios.

What was that about "not reading posts" and "looking like a public fool"?

Those were the examples I asked for, which you claimed were in post number 90.
This it seems was a lie.

Dades · 10-02-2010 09:53PM

DogmaticLefty wrote: »

To someone who puts their faith in science, you'd think it was a crucial thing to consider.

Because as a scientist you know the first thing they do is add up the number of brains they need to figure something out, right?

DogmaticLefty · 10-02-2010 09:53PM

Malty_T wrote: »

Who said that
[latex]\frac{A}{A} \Rightarrow 0[/latex]:p
When A is non zero.

Cool.

Turtwig · 10-02-2010 09:53PM

DogmaticLefty wrote: »

To someone who puts their faith in science, you'd think it was a crucial thing to consider.

It isn't just science that I have faith in, I also have faith in something that religion likes to degrade :humanity.

iUseVi · 10-02-2010 09:55PM

Dades wrote: »

Because as a scientist you know the first thing they do is add up the number of brains they need to figure something out, right?

More crucially; how many scientists does it take to change a lightbulb?

I dunno, are any of them called JC?

Ickle Magoo · 10-02-2010 09:55PM

DogmaticLefty wrote: »

To someone who puts their faith in science, you'd think it was a crucial thing to consider.

Who is puting "faith" in science? Some folks are prepared to accept that what science tells us is all we know at the moment, that it's very likely to change and we will always be answering some questions while uncovering more. I'm not sure which part of not having to make up things you presume automatically equates to a "faith" in anything else....

DogmaticLefty · 10-02-2010 09:59PM

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Who is puting "faith" in science? Some folks are prepared to accept that what science tells us is all we know at the moment, that it's very likely to change and we will always be answering some questions while uncovering more. I'm not sure which part of not having to make up things you presume automatically equates to a "faith" in anything else....

And there was me thinking 2+2=4 and Pythagorm's theorm couldn't be disproved...

Turtwig · 10-02-2010 10:00PM

DogmaticLefty wrote: »

And there was me thinking 2+2=4 and Pythagorm's theorm couldn't be disproved...

And there was me thinking that a scientist would know the basics difference between mathematical idealisms and physical reality.
(Category error, rob?)

iUseVi · 10-02-2010 10:02PM

DogmaticLefty wrote: »

And there was me thinking 2+2=4 and Pythagorm's theorm couldn't be disproved...

Well if you notice I made sure to specify euclidean space in my post about Pythagoras' theorem. In elliptic geometry for example, things can be different.

10-02-2010 10:02PM

DogmaticLefty wrote: »

And there was me thinking 2+2=4 and Pythagorm's theorm couldn't be disproved...

And some how I get the feeling if anyone here had the audacity to saying anything with any certainty that you happen to disagree with (or are willing to pretend to disagree with) you'd be jumping all over it.

Ickle Magoo · 10-02-2010 10:04PM

DogmaticLefty wrote: »

And there was me thinking 2+2=4 and Pythagorm's theorm couldn't be disproved...

You think primary mathematics and Pythagorean theory is "all we know at the moment" do you? You who claims to be a scientist with a masters can't grasp what I'm trying to spell out to you, seriously now...oh dear.

DogmaticLefty · 10-02-2010 10:08PM

Funny watching a bunch of atheists get themselves into a logical tizzy. I'm gonna to bow out now. See you guys another night.

Flamed Diving · 10-02-2010 10:13PM

DogmaticLefty wrote: »

To someone who puts their faith in science, you'd think it was a crucial thing to consider.

No, it is possibly the dumbest question ever to consider. Dumb and pointless.

10-02-2010 10:14PM

DogmaticLefty wrote: »

Funny watching a bunch of atheists get themselves into a logical tizzy. I'm gonna to bow out now. See you guys another night.

A child insisting that something is what it isn't then followed by childish arguments and stick fingers into ears, doesn't exactly pose a logical conundrum.

Trolling isn't the most Christian behaviour.

Sam Vimes · 10-02-2010 10:15PM

DogmaticLefty wrote: »

I am a scientist. :P

I see. I'm the lord Jesus Christ. Nice to meet you

Ickle Magoo · 10-02-2010 10:15PM

DogmaticLefty wrote: »

Funny watching a bunch of atheists get themselves into a logical tizzy. I'm gonna to bow out now. See you guys another night.

Not as funny as watching a theist getting into an illogical pickle, I'd bet my house on it. :pac:

Turtwig · 10-02-2010 10:17PM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I see. I'm the lord Jesus Christ. Nice to meet you

Divine cheese sandwich.

Zillah · 10-02-2010 10:23PM

DogmaticLefty wrote: »

And there was me thinking 2+2=4 and Pythagorm's theorm couldn't be disproved...

Haha, seriously? You don't know there's a difference between mathematics and science?

I love these guys. They charge in here convinced they're going to rock our world and show themselves to be utterly under equipped to debate at a sufficient level.

Flamed Diving · 10-02-2010 10:26PM

Zillah wrote: »

Haha, seriously? You don't know there's a difference between mathematics and science?

I love these guys. They charge in here convinced they're going to rock our world and show themselves to be utterly under equipped to debate at a sufficient level.

What's worse, they assume we haven't dealt with a million people like them before, not to mention that the majority of posters on here have rolled with the High-King of Religious Insanity:

JC.

It's the equivalent of having a PhD in Bullsh!t Deflection.

Turtwig · 10-02-2010 10:28PM

Flamed Diving wrote: »

It's the equivalent of having a PhD in Bullsh!t Deflection.

There's no smiley good enough for this, but I'll try.

robindch · 10-02-2010 10:54PM

DogmaticLefty wrote: »

The human brain severely is limited. [...] My faith lies in something much, much bigger.

You might think that your faith encompasses something much, much bigger, but just as you can't fit a quart into a pint pot, neither can you squeeze something much, much bigger into your own "severely" "limited" organ.

Given that, I politely suggest that your deity is around the size of one third of a Dachshund.

Wacker · 10-02-2010 11:00PM

DogmaticLefty wrote: »

And there was me thinking 2+2=4 and Pythagorm's theorm couldn't be disproved...

As I'm happy to admit I am neither a mathematician or a scientist, so maybe I am not the one to ask this question, but who the hell was Pythagorm?

robindch · 10-02-2010 11:06PM

Malty_T wrote: »

And there was me thinking that a scientist would know the basics difference between mathematical idealisms and physical reality.
(Category error, rob?)

Yep. Of the worst kind -- failing to distinguish between symbolic and physical reality!

chozometroid · 11-02-2010 12:44AM

monosharp wrote: »

Spiderman would beat god anytime.

The natural course is things is, according to your beliefs, his plan. Hence he is responsible for them.

Stan Lee is 87 years old.

Once God sets in motion the course of nature, which is in the physical realm of reality and follows the laws of nature, He wouldn't later just intervene when things are inconvenient for man and screw things up.

Wicknight wrote: »

Only if you get into the "evil is necessary for free will" argument, which itself is an epic fail as has been demonstrated many times on this forum.

God allowing evil is no more necessary for free will than allow us to walk on water is necessary for free will.

Allowing free will is allowing for the possibility of evil. Hence, Satan, before man even.

Theists seem to have such a hard time with that concept due to lack of being able to visualize the world any different from how it is now. They don't realise that God could have made the universe any way he wanted, including a universe here it was impossible to do harm to each other yet still everyone had completely free will.

This cannot be known. That's like saying God can make a cake any way He wants, even if it means not including ANY ingredients that make a cake.

A good example of this is that he could have created Eden without the tree. Adam and Eve would have still had had complete free will, God would have simply limited their options as he limits everyone's options.

God wanted them to develop trust in Him as their Lord and friend. All He did was tell them what was best for them. Someone is never a true friend until they have had a chance to screw you over, and don't.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

ie It's also a great get out clause to explain why there is an uncanny lack of intervention - almost as if god wasn't there, you could say....

It's not a get-out clause, but sure, it is a way to show why God appears inactive. God doesn't always "butt-in" to people's lives. He waits for them to knock.

Atheism and Science

Comments