Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Believers Vs Non-believers
Comments
-
Ickle Magoo wrote: »I don't think it's the alien and agnostic forum either. :P
Seriously, give a solid argument which is both intelligently articulated and supported with viable evidence from reputable sources and you will have a captive audience, unfortunately people tend to approach this forum with neither and then get upset when they are laughed out the door again.
Ah Ickle Magoo, take it easy on him eh ?
And Demonspawn a tip from me - getting angry will get you nowhere on here...
I'm backing out now.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Which is exactly what most atheists believe.demonspawn wrote: »No, I believe a god could exist, but the God of the Abrahamic religions is an artificial construct to apply control over the population by a minority.
To suggest you were "set upon" would imply a trap rather than a reaction to your own initial comments, surely. Did you even did check what forum you were in before you started posting? What's amusing is we've been trying to claim you are one of "our own" since you started posting here and yet you still seem to believe there's a mob against you.demonspawn wrote: »Yes, I came here in an aggressive fashion because I know how atheists and the religious argue in the same fashion. I was not expecting to be set upon by the entire forum, including moderators. But I guess there's strength in numbers eh? Luckily, I'm quite strong enough to stand on my own two feet. I don't need a mob behind me for support. 0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Stephen who...?demonspawn wrote: »Stephen Hawkins accepts the possibility of intelligent lifeforms visiting Earth, he even goes so far as to assume they would be much like us and only here for resources, which is ridiculous. So what the f**k are you talking about? Now you see why I ignore your posts?
Ah!The Mad Hatter wrote: »Ah yes, him. He's a friend of Richard Dawking, isn't he?
Maybe it's time to update my sigMagicMarker wrote: »Can not explain = aliens did it?
You fail at logic.
0 -
My next post satirizing Pyramidiots will be in written in pink, with a fistful of these things
Google maps is stitched together from aerial photography at that range, so there may be some distortion [...]robindch wrote:
You can see it yourself from this aerial picture. The pyramids are clearly pushed to the right a bit and also, more importantly, that they're all bent out of shape too. The usual "tourist" pictures you see have been doctored to make them look far straighter than they actually are. Tourists wouldn't come if they knew that the pyramids are as old and knackered-looking as they really are.
:eek::rolleyes::D;):p:cool::pac:
at the end 0 -
-
My next post satirizing Pyramidiots will be in written in pink, with a fistful of these things:eek::rolleyes::D;):p:cool::pac: at the end
I would think a moderator of all people would be less inclined to insult posters on these boards. Very mature.
Well, looks like you lot have f**k all to talk about, other than smoothies or the latest atheist to kick the bucket, when the believers aren't here. That's pretty sad. So I'm back to discuss atheism and what it actually means.
It seems that every atheist on this forum seems to think it means that you must only believe in things that can be proven with absolute certainty. Well, it's not. I'll give you a hint, it's the second part of the word.. atheist.
You seem to wear your atheism like some badge of honor, as if because you only believe in things that can be scientifically proven that you are somehow better than those with "irrational" beliefs. That's not only arrogant and insulting, it's absolute stupidity.
Time has shown over and over again that things we "knew" as scientific fact turned out to be completely false. The cult of Science isn't much different than the belief in God. You believe what you're told by scientists and other atheists without any real understanding of what you're being told. Your Evidence that you so aggressively demand is changing all the time.
Can anyone here honestly hold their hand up and admit they have no clue what Stephen Hawking is talking about half the time? You have to take his word for it because you don't have 10-15 letters after your names. You take what he says on faith as you have no real way of knowing these things yourself. Hell, he's even proven himself wrong on a number of occasions. So where's your evidence then? Scientists are constantly arguing with each other about various things, so how can all this scientific evidence be accepted as absolute fact? It required a little bit of faith, that's how.0 -
I've just completed an astrophysics assignment so I know a very little about what he talks about - but you are missing the point slightly. What you refer to is the beauty of the scientific method - it never claims to have it absolutely correct - there are no absolutes or proofs out-with mathematics. Science tends to be based more in probabilities.
I'm not sure you really understand how the scientific method works. Generally a hypothesis is presented along with all supporting evidence for public perusal and peer review and it is thrown back and forth, sometimes between hundreds of thousand of people many an expert in that field, sometimes over decades; until a hypothesis is trimmed, corrected, changed, updated, gaps filled, etc until we arrive at a theory - the pinnacle of our current understanding. All it takes is for new evidence to present itself and science must take that and change it's views, laws and assumptions accordingly - that's the difference between science and religion that I really like.
I'm not sure what you mean by badge of honour or why you are so angry that some form of evidence is being sought? If I believe the we evolve or that the earth revolves around the sun it is because that can be shown to happen, anyone can study astrophysics or particle physics or theoretical physics if they are real suckers for punishment! That some don't or can't understand what some of the top minds in the scientific fields are discussing or proposing is hardly the fault of science, is it?
Edited to add: If someone makes a claim about aliens or gods, you can only take them at their word and choose to believe or not - that's faith. If a physicist makes a claim, there is nothing stopping you from reviewing, debating or disproving their claim. I don't think lack of knowledge and lack of evidence are comparable.0 -
Ickle Magoo wrote: »I've just completed an astrophysics assignment so I know a very little about what he talks about - but you are missing the point slightly. What you refer to is the beauty of the scientific method - it never claims to have it absolutely correct - there are no absolutes or proofs out-with mathematics. Science tends to be based more in probabilities.
And yet atheists accept scientific theories as the truth without seeking alternative explanations. Care to explain that to me?I'm not sure you really understand how the scientific method works.
I'm well aware of how the scientific method works, and it requires a bit of faith as we do not know all there is to know about the universe. In fact, we know very little in the grand scheme of things. We're still trying to find the basic building blocks of matter.I'm not sure what you mean by badge of honour or why you are so angry that some form of evidence is being sought? If I believe the we evolve or that the earth revolves around the sun it is because that can be shown to happen, anyone can study astrophysics or particle physics or theoretical physics if they are real suckers for punishment!
Because you do wear it as a badge of honor. You openly criticize those with opposing views because those views do not fit into your own understanding of the universe. You refute any idea if the evidence does not agree with your own views.That some don't or can't understand what some of the top minds in the scientific fields are discussing or proposing is hardly the fault of science, is it?
A religious person can use the exact same argument. That some don't or can't understand what some of the top minds in the religious fields are discussing or proposing is hardly the fault of religion , is it? See how that works?Edited to add: If someone makes a claim about aliens or gods, you can only take them at their word and choose to believe or not - that's faith. If a physicist makes a claim, there is nothing stopping you from reviewing, debating or disproving their claim. I don't think lack of knowledge and lack of evidence are comparable.
Not when evidence is provided by reputable sources, as I have done in showing that UFO disclosure video. Physical evidence has been provided to prove the existence of extraterrestrial UFOs but it is dismissed out of hand as CT nonsense before it's even given a chance. That's not very scientific.
As much as you people claim to be scientific and open-minded, the opposite is closer to the truth. You only accept that which you can understand with your limited knowledge of the universe.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
Ok I'll bite.demonspawn wrote: »I would think a moderator of all people would be less inclined to insult posters on these boards. Very mature.
Well, looks like you lot have f**k all to talk about, other than smoothies or the latest atheist to kick the bucket, when the believers aren't here. That's pretty sad. So I'm back to discuss atheism and what it actually means.
It seems that every atheist on this forum seems to think it means that you must only believe in things that can be proven with absolute certainty. Well, it's not. I'll give you a hint, it's the second part of the word.. atheist.
You seem to wear your atheism like some badge of honor, as if because you only believe in things that can be scientifically proven that you are somehow better than those with "irrational" beliefs. That's not only arrogant and insulting, it's absolute stupidity.
Time has shown over and over again that things we "knew" as scientific fact turned out to be completely false. The cult of Science isn't much different than the belief in God. You believe what you're told by scientists and other atheists without any real understanding of what you're being told. Your Evidence that you so aggressively demand is changing all the time.
Can anyone here honestly hold their hand up and admit they have no clue what Stephen Hawking is talking about half the time? You have to take his word for it because you don't have 10-15 letters after your names. You take what he says on faith as you have no real way of knowing these things yourself. Hell, he's even proven himself wrong on a number of occasions. So where's your evidence then? Scientists are constantly arguing with each other about various things, so how can all this scientific evidence be accepted as absolute fact? It required a little bit of faith, that's how.
We have fuck all to talk about? Hang on, aren't you the guy who didn't want us to be discussing stuff in the first place? I was under the impression that was why you posted this thread. Guess I owe you an apology on that one. Ye, life can be depressing you know, I'm sorry but sometimes our tongues go dry and words fail to evaporate out.
Actually, firstly categorising atheists as having group dictums is grossly incorrect. Some of the posters here share many things in common, but in reality, that's nothing to do with being atheist. Secondly, I'm a sceptic and that is a badge I wear with honour. I actually think it is impossible to prove anything 100%. I think most posters here would agree. Either way it is the essence of the scientific method.
"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong" - Albert Einstein
With regards to wearing my atheism with a badge of honour : ABSOLUTELY NOT! If you go back through my post history, you should see how much I hate the term "atheist". It's about as an effective description as describing someone who doesn't support Carlisle Utd an A-Carlisist. The only reason the term exists is because theist see it so necessary to categorise themselves as special and "normal". Maybe they are? Who knows, but I don't believe there exists such a thing as a "normal" person, or the "perfect" one.
If it wasn't for shambolic education systems in most countries human beings wouldn't have this misconception about science. In most schools sci ed is almost indoctrinated on most students. They see it as stroll through boredom land. Everything is either learned by rote, or simply not learned at all. The golden rule of science is skepticism : You never ever, ever! Trust what another scientist is telling you until you can test the argument for yourself. Or at the very least make sure it is coming from a human you have faith on. It may seem weird but the two jobs that epitomise the trust humanity has in one another are science and swat/military units/elements. Science is built off the collective trust of thousands of individuals sharing their knowledge, criticising it and building on it. A Swat unit depends on the trust of each member doing their responsibility honestly and trusting others to do theirs - otherwise the team is compromised and most likely fucked. The only faith science requires is faith in the honesty of others, and we wouldn't have got this far if people weren't, in general, a cooperative bunch.
There was a time, once, when a guy named Carl used to say stuff, stuff I had no clue of. I couldn't understand him, I was only 6, or 7, but the pictures he showed me gave me the urge to try to understand him. No, I do not understand everything Hawkins is saying, (although once I finish this I should have a better idea.
) nor do I think Hawkings is 100% right. I think that science is based on the idea of consensuses and debates. After all, it was other physicists who showed Hawkins, Newton, Einstein, etc to be wrong. It may take a while, but generally speaking the theory with the most evidence will always rise to the top and become the consensus. [For a really good grasp of this I recommend you read up on the history of the big bang theory, or more recently, Anthropogenic Global Warming.] That is, of course, as long as humans remain consistent in their goals of cooperation. Which really is dependent on stopping nutjob wackos from corrupting the civilisation that 1000s have worked to develop. There are Creationists, homoeopaths, Radical Islamists, etc. who would rather destroy our very way of life just to impose their own pre stone age primate beliefs. Isn't that reason enough for atheists to voice their opinions?
So stick around, have a cup of coffee and in time you may begin to like us. 0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
I never said we have nothing to talk about. I'm saying that the style in which both sides discuss the topic is close-minded and willfully ignorant. Both side set up camp and defend their position to the bitter end, instead of actually giving the other side a fair hearing. Please tell me this is not the case.
Group thinks are an extremely common aspect of human nature. I would tend to argue that, on average, skeptics are the least prone to groupthinks. Though, I admit, this is mostly from personal experience. I may be wrong. The problem is we're a competitive bunch, very few folks like to lose an argument and always see themselves as right. They usually resort to putting the goalpost on warp drive before admitting their argument was incorrect.
Again, I'd say this falls more heavily on the ideological sides. One reason why I prefer ascribing the term freethinkers to many posters here, including myself.
I don't think many of the posters here are the type you are referring to. Can you name one? Because, if I recall correctly they are in a very slim minority. I get your point, most of us here do, the question is who exactly is it aimed at?Then you're not really the type I'm referring to. I'm talking about the "I'm right and your wrong and I have Science to back me up" crowd. In my view, skepticism and atheism go hand in hand. They refuse to accept something without irrefutable evidence, when the reality is there no such thing as irrefutable evidence. This is the point I'm trying to make.
Almost hit the nail on the head here. Very often science advances only when the older generation have died off. They tend to be ones that cling to their theories. I don't mean to sound morbid, but in if I can find it, there's an hilariously funny article on newscientist about this. Gave me a right auld chuckle. Yep, for 300 years the majority of the physics community thought Newtons's way was THE way. The important thing here to remember though, is that for every actual Galileo the world gets we also get 10,000,0000 wannabees. Very often, theories proposed years ago in the past that were dismissed due to lack of evidence or acceptance - plate tectonics for example- reemerge when new evidence comes to light, or when gaps in a current theory start emerging at an alarming rate. The problem is most of the time most of the "theories" that are dismissed are utter nonsense. Have you read a Brief History of Nearly Everything by Bill Bryson? I cannot recommend it highly enough.I'd have to disagree. I believe many scientists spend more time trying to prove their theories correct than they do trying to prove another person's theories wrong. It's only once in a while that a scientist will question a widely held belief in a theory that progress is made. Many theories are taken as the gospel truth and they stay that way until someone comes along and see that theory from a different perspective.My argument is that the atheists on these boards, and many others, will dismiss any evidence that just doesn't make sense to them without giving that evidence a fair hearing. This has already been proven in this thread. My theory is scientifically sound, though it may be improbable, and I've been attacked by nearly every atheist poster here without being given the benefit of the doubt. This is my problem, you see?
I don't mean to sound arrogant here, but I fear I'll probably come across as being arrogant. You need to understand that many atheists here have seen the arguments used again and again and again and again - it just get's old. They tend to have an understanding of things such as logical fallacies, cognitive dissonances etc. You, being the newbie, have a lot to learn. I can almost guarantee that if you stick around here and read the Christianity forum you'll learn a lot more about stuff. Boards helped open my mind to stuff that I was downright ignorant of. Stick around, but you have to understand that your evidence regarding pyramids was so full of holes that most people here didn't know where to begin. I suggest you subscribe to this podcast.demonspawn wrote: »Atheists are so hostile to those that have faith, yet they don't realize that many of their scientific theories are based on the faith of our limited knowledge of the universe.
Many people tend to mistake religious criticism as hostility towards that religion. Don't get me wrong some atheists are hostile towards religion, but many aren't. Religions, in my view, are open to criticism just like politicians are. I don't think you understand the concept of religious "faith" though. Faith in science is faith in skepticism, falsifiablity and the possiblity of something and maybe everything you know being wrong. Faith in religion is essentially faith in being correct and everyone else being wrong. As Terry Pratchett once said:
"The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to the presence of those who think they've found it."0 -
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
Group thinks are an extremely common aspect of human nature. I would tend to argue that, on average, skeptics are the least prone to groupthinks. Though, I admit, this is mostly from personal experience. I may be wrong. The problem is we're a competitive bunch, very few folks like to lose an argument and always see themselves as right. They usually resort to putting the goalpost on warp drive before admitting their argument was incorrect.
Again, I'd say this falls more heavily on the ideological sides. One reason why I prefer ascribing the term freethinkers to many posters here, including myself.
I won't respond to your entire post as I agree with most of it to some extent. I'd just like to point out how I got into this whole argument about my beliefs. If you go all the way back to page 4 you'll see:demonspawn wrote: »Well that's not really fair now is it? You either believe in God or you believe there is no God. You can't just change your mind. Maybe you're not an atheist, but an agnostic like me. Come, join uuuusss.....jooinn uuussssss.
And I believe in evolution too, I just don't believe humans evolved like the rest of the animals on the planet. *cough*aliens*cough*genetic engineering*cough*
A fairly innocent comment at the end of my post. Then on page 5:midlandsmissus wrote: »Wow, demonspawn just read your last post (genetic engineering) - that's freaky!
You've alot of the same views as me, some of your posts could be me talking!
In fact I don't think anyone's really had the same view as me before.
Do you think it's so hard sometimes to get people to see outside the box of religion/atheism?
Then:MagicMarker wrote: »Err, I think (and hope) he was joking.
Which leads to page after page of me having to defend my belief against a mob of people who never entertained the possibility of my theory having some bit of truth to it. This is why I'm pissed off at a few people on this forum. They are willfully ignorant despite their claim to be open-minded freethinkers as you put it.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement