Atheism and Science

Flamed Diving · 10-02-2010 9:21pm

DogmaticLefty wrote: »

You put your faith in the scientific method. The human brain severely is limited. As is human life. My faith lies in something much, much bigger.

One brain is limited. Therefore, humans work together. And guess what? We record our findings! Then we review and revise. Knowledge then accumulates exponentially.

for 5 points who can guess what I am describing?

DogmaticLefty · 10-02-2010 9:22pm

King Mob wrote: »

Atheists do not have a Dogma or single structured set of morals and ethics

I know. You organise in an ad-hoc manner. You'd think you'd go about things in a more efficient manner. Then again, plenty of atheist organisations are emerging all across the world - some even lobby government. Sure before you know it, you'll have a hall on every street corner offering all kinds of sermons and rituals to your members. You might even mimic the great St John and have your own evangelisation corps.

iUseVi · 10-02-2010 9:23pm

DogmaticLefty wrote: »

You put your faith in the scientific method. The human brain severely is limited. As is human life. My faith lies in something much, much bigger.

I don't know where you got that from, but the scientific method is bigger than one human brain and the mistakes it can make. A valid scientific theory will be backed up by experiments that are repeatable by anyone. Anybody could prove pythagoras' theorem if they chose to, assuming euclidean space with three dimensions etc. All humans could die out and hundreds of years later aliens could prove the same theorem, its truth does not depend on the fallibility of a human brain. Your faith is baseless, and cannot be backed up but repeatable experiments - which is why it is nonsense. You accept that the brain is limited, how do you know your "feeling of god" is true?

DogmaticLefty · 10-02-2010 9:24pm

Flamed Diving wrote: »

One brain is limited. Therefore, humans work together. And guess what? We record our findings! Then we review and revise. Knowledge then accumulates exponentially.

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?

King Mob · 10-02-2010 9:25pm

DogmaticLefty wrote: »

I know. You organise in an ad-hoc manner. You'd think you'd go about things in a more efficient manner. Then again, plenty of atheist organisations are emerging all across the world - some even lobby government. Sure before you know it, you'll have a hall on every street corner offering all kinds of sermons and rituals to your members. You might even mimic St John and have your own evangelisation wing.

So then, no you can't provide a single example I asked for?

Instead you're going to concoct some silly slippery slope?

I think I might have to play logical fallacy bingo.

Turtwig · 10-02-2010 9:26pm

DogmaticLefty wrote: »

You put your faith in the scientific method. The human brain severely is limited. As is human life. My faith lies in something much, much bigger.

Perhaps you missed this in the previous thread:

Lack of belief in God(s).
The concept shouldn't even exist ffs.

You can still be an atheist and be a spiritualist.
You can still be an atheist and be buddhist.
You can still be an atheist and be Christian! (Bizarre I know- But If you follow Jesus..)
You can still be an atheist and be pro-life.
You can still be an atheist and be anti-life.
You can still be an atheist and be a pacifist.
You can still be an atheist and be anti-science.

They can believe the sky is a carpet painted by a fairy.
They can believe that evolution is a lie!
They can believe that the sun is orange marble and that earth is hollow.

All they have to do to be atheist is:
Lack belief in God(s).

DogmaticLefty · 10-02-2010 9:30pm

Malty_T wrote: »

All they have to do be atheist is:
Lack belief in God(s).

Why do you have to hold so many seminars and write so many annoying books if that's the only message you bring to the world?

Can't you just tattoo it to your forehead? It would make life much easier for the majority of the population.

Turtwig · 10-02-2010 9:31pm

DogmaticLefty wrote: »

Why do you have to hold so many seminars and write so many annoying books if that's the only message you bring to the world?

Because many atheists happen to be humanists. I'm not one so your question doesn't apply to me.

King Mob · 10-02-2010 9:33pm

DogmaticLefty wrote: »

Why do you have to hold so many seminars and write so many annoying books if that's the only message you bring to the world?

Because they are interesting?

Why is there so many sci-fi books and conventions in the world?

DogmaticLefty wrote: »

Can't you just tattoo it to your forehead? It would make life much easier for the majority of the population.

Why? So we can be herded into camps?

Oh look I can use the slippery slope fallacy too.

DogmaticLefty · 10-02-2010 9:33pm

King Mob wrote: »

So then, no you can't provide a single example I asked for?

If you bothered to read my posts, you wouldn't be making a public fool of yourself. Post #90. Search for 'common trait amongst atheists'.

Ickle Magoo · 10-02-2010 9:33pm

DogmaticLefty wrote: »

Why do you have to hold so many seminars and write so many annoying books if that's the only message you bring to the world?

Can't you just tattoo it to your forehead? It would make life much easier for the majority of the population.

Public fool, lol. Hello pot, I'm black kettle!

The majority of the world are not catholic, perhaps you would tattoo the pope onto your own forehead so you wouldn't be a complete hypocrite?

Why do theists constantly bash on about their faith if the only message is there is a god and to try to be nice?

iUseVi · 10-02-2010 9:37pm

DogmaticLefty wrote: »

Why do you have to hold so many seminars and write so many annoying books if that's the only message you bring to the world?

Can't you just tattoo it to your forehead? It would make life much easier for the majority of the population.

Heres a tip. Don't buy the books, don't go to the seminars.

If all you have to complain about that you couldn't possibly avoid is a single bus ad, then you've got a very weak case.

Actually no, you've got no case at all.

King Mob · 10-02-2010 9:37pm

DogmaticLefty wrote: »

If you bothered to read my posts, you wouldn't be making a public fool of yourself. Post #90. Search for 'common trait amongst atheists'.

You're certainly one to talk about not reading posts.

And I did read that post.
Didn't contain any examples of anything I asked for.

Turtwig · 10-02-2010 9:39pm

DogmaticLefty wrote: »

Why do you have to hold so many seminars and write so many annoying books if that's the only message you bring to the world?

To pre-empt Dade's response to this.:pac:

Why don't you go and ask the vegetarian forum why they feel the need to have seminars and write books?

Sam Vimes · 10-02-2010 9:40pm

I think anyone who comes on the internet to bad mouth science in an attempt to promote their own personal nonsense should have all their modern conveniences that science has given them such as the computer they're typing on confiscated until they learn some respect

DogmaticLefty · 10-02-2010 9:41pm

King Mob wrote: »

You're certainly one to talk about not reading posts.

And I did read that post.
Didn't like the answer I found.

Fixed that for you.

DogmaticLefty · 10-02-2010 9:42pm

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I think anyone who comes on the internet to bad mouth science in an attempt to promote their own personal nonsense should have all their modern conveniences that science has given them such as the computer they're typing on confiscated until they learn some respect

I am a scientist. :P

iUseVi · 10-02-2010 9:43pm

DogmaticLefty wrote: »

Fixed that for you.

Umm no, theres nothing in that post regarding any examples whatsoever.

Ickle Magoo · 10-02-2010 9:45pm

DogmaticLefty wrote: »

I am a scientist. :P

Clearly one of the rare breed of scientists who can compartmentalise logic/abandon logic depending on which hat you are donning.

Turtwig · 10-02-2010 9:46pm

DogmaticLefty wrote: »

I am a scientist. :P

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

King Mob · 10-02-2010 9:47pm

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 9:47pm

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 9:48pm

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 9:49pm

DogmaticLefty wrote: »

I am a scientist. :P

So is JC.

DogmaticLefty · 10-02-2010 9:50pm

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 9:51pm

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.

King Mob · 10-02-2010 9:52pm

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 9:53pm

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 9:53pm

Malty_T wrote: »

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

Cool.

Turtwig · 10-02-2010 9:53pm

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 9:55pm

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 9:55pm

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 9:59pm

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.

King Mob · 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.

King Mob · 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