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

"no, I'm actually an athiest"

Options
1…3031333536…71

Comments

  • Options
    #962
    Saganist
    Registered Users Posts: 1,333 ✭✭✭Saganist


    Mr. Loverman wrote: »
    My point is it suggest "facts" like gravity are not rock solid. Hence why I have an open mind. You should try it. Science is littered with unfortunate individuals who refused to accept current science might be wrong.

    Btw I do believe in evolution. And I am an athiest. I'm just not close minded about being wrong.

    Science is and always has been self correcting and critical of itself. That is the height of opened-mindedness...

    However, it will take some damn good new evidence to disprove the theory of either evolution or gravity..

    And if new evidence was to come to light. Of course, I'd accept it. :P


  • Options
    #963
    MrStuffins
    Registered Users Posts: 19,191 ✭✭✭✭MrStuffins


    Mr. Loverman wrote: »
    Yes, you have to be close minded and view all science as fact to be smart. I assure you most people in Stanford were like me.

    Thank God i never went there then!

    So you think my believing that i exist is arrogant then, am i correct?


  • Options
    #964
    Mr. Loverman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,001 ✭✭✭Mr. Loverman


    Caesar Augustus wrote: »
    Who among us said that any theory is infallible?

    Who said that? We are simply moving with evidence, if the evidence strongly suggests tomorrow that evolution is not adequate for explaining the diversity of life, I would be among the first to admit it and turn my attention to solving the riddle anew.

    Yes but the difference between you and me is I am keeping an open mind that tomorrow might come and we may come up with a new theory, whereas you are assuming that day will never come. And you're getting strangely angry about it.


  • Options
    #965
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    MrStuffins - You should read Descartes - Meditations on First Philosophy. He actually did doubt that he existed, and took about 6 chapters to reason himself back to the position that he actually did!


  • Options
    #966
    OutlawPete
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,689 ✭✭✭✭OutlawPete


    MrStuffins wrote: »
    Although, you'd probably condescend to it!

    Really?

    You have accused me of being condescending quite a few times, which I find laughable to be quite honest with you.

    Take this recent post from you:
    MrStuffins wrote: »
    So what you are saying is, there is no such thing as a fact?

    I mean, there is also an incredibly minute chance that the clothes you are wearing right now are not real. That, in fact, you are not real and the whole world around you is part of an elaborate trick being played on your conciousness.

    So, your existence isn't actually a fact? is that right?

    Afterall, how can you know for sure?

    :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

    You are quite simply the most arrogant and condescending poster on this thread and have been from the start.

    You Sir, are the poster boy for what the OP was complaining about.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #967
    Mr. Loverman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,001 ✭✭✭Mr. Loverman


    Saganist wrote: »
    it will take some damn good new evidence to disprove the theory of either evolution or gravity..

    I agree. I have stated I believe in evolution. I am simply saying it is incorrect to assume it is the only explanation because we may come up with a better explanation.


  • Options
    #968
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    MrStuffins wrote: »
    According to his logic, my believing that my existence is a fact makes me arrogant

    :rolleyes:

    No it's your perceived certainty on the matter that makes you seem arrogant. Regardless of how creationists may choose to distort the meaning of theory we should not compromise by declaring theories as facts; they aren't. Science prides itself in uncertainty. Every single scientific fact no matter how miniscule has a margin for error associated with it. Let's not forget that.


  • Options
    #969
    scientific1982
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,562 ✭✭✭scientific1982


    My name is URL wrote: »
    Well it's a stupid law and very unlikely to be enforced before a referendum takes place on it



    Those two things have more to do with connections between the organisations of religion and the state. And I'm definitely against organised religion impeding on public life. To me it's more of a political problem than a religious one.
    Article 10 (1) of the European Human Rights Convention states that "Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas, without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers."

    This human right has been taken away from us. We no longer have freedom of speech in this country


  • Options
    #970
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Jakkass wrote: »
    MrStuffins - You should read Descartes - Meditations on First Philosophy. He actually did doubt that he existed, and took about 6 chapters to reason himself back to the position that he actually did!

    Added to my to read list. :D


  • Options
    #971
    MrStuffins
    Registered Users Posts: 19,191 ✭✭✭✭MrStuffins


    OutlawPete wrote: »
    Really?

    You have accused me of being condescending quite a few times, which I find laughable to be quite honest with you.

    Take this recent post from you:



    Your quite simply the most arogant and condescending poster on this thread and have been from the start.

    You Sir, are the poster boy for what the OP was complaining about.

    I'm sorry Outlaw pete but you're wrong. I am actually debating here. And i am using the posters own logic in the post you have quoted.

    Whereas you are just floating here, not answering questions put to you and jumping in with the odd jibe at me.

    You haven't actually contributed anything since last night to the best of my knowledge.

    Most of your posts have been condescending in this thread. There's no getting away from it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #972
    Mr. Loverman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,001 ✭✭✭Mr. Loverman


    MrStuffins wrote: »
    Thank God i never went there then!

    So you think my believing that i exist is arrogant then, am i correct?

    Well you're coming across as a very arrogant person.

    Honestly I spend a lot of time thinking about the meaning of life and that includes the whole concept of existence. I have no answer to it. All I know is I am here for some reason, I do appear to exist, but I have no clue why I exist or what I'm supposed to be doing with my life.


  • Options
    #973
    Saganist
    Registered Users Posts: 1,333 ✭✭✭Saganist


    Mr. Loverman wrote: »
    Yes but the difference between you and me is I am keeping an open mind that tomorrow might come and we may come up with a new theory, whereas you are assuming that day will never come. And you're getting strangely angry about it.

    I think evolution describes the process beautifully. Why do we need a need theory ?


  • Options
    #974
    Saganist
    Registered Users Posts: 1,333 ✭✭✭Saganist


    Mr. Loverman wrote: »
    Well you're coming across as a very arrogant person.

    Honestly I spend a lot of time thinking about the meaning of life and that includes the whole concept of existence. I have no answer to it. All I know is I am here for some reason, I do appear to exist, but I have no clue why I exist or what I'm supposed to be doing with my life.

    http://east.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/solipsist

    http://images.brisbanetimes.com.au/2009/01/07/342103/mbw_dawkins-420x0.jpg


  • Options
    #975
    MrStuffins
    Registered Users Posts: 19,191 ✭✭✭✭MrStuffins


    Malty_T wrote: »
    Every single scientific fact no matter how miniscule has a margin for error associated with it. Let's not forget that.

    I agree. I never said otherwise.

    And here you use the word fact in the way it should be used and the way i have been using it.


  • Options
    #976
    Marcus.Aurelius
    Registered Users Posts: 2,314 ✭✭✭Marcus.Aurelius


    Mr. Loverman wrote: »
    Yes but the difference between you and me is I am keeping an open mind that tomorrow might come and we may come up with a new theory, whereas you are assuming that day will never come. And you're getting strangely angry about it.

    I don't think the text of my reply indicated any kind of anger. Perhaps it conveys a certain perplexed frustration at someone who would insist on a theory being so fluidic as to be unstable. Of course it could be in need of modification, such is the life of theory.

    And like I said, I'd be happy to modify it tomorrow if the need arose. That is what Science is all about, I'm sure you'll agree.

    :)


  • Options
    #977
    Helix
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,661 ✭✭✭✭Helix


    Mr. Loverman wrote: »
    Well you're coming across as a very arrogant person.

    Honestly I spend a lot of time thinking about the meaning of life and that includes the whole concept of existence. I have no answer to it. All I know is I am here for some reason, I do appear to exist, but I have no clue why I exist or what I'm supposed to be doing with my life.


    why does there have to be a meaning to life, and why do you have to be here for a reason?

    cant you simply be here as a result?


  • Options
    #978
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Saganist wrote: »
    Science is and always has been self correcting and critical of itself. That is the height of opened-mindedness...

    However, it will take some damn good new evidence to disprove the theory of either evolution or gravity..

    And if new evidence was to come to light. Of course, I'd accept it. :P

    Not really if a crocodile gave birth to a duck in the morning, evolution, as it stands, would have to be thrown out the window. Incidentally, the evidence required by anti-evolutionists for proof of evolution is exactly that which would disprove evolution in an instant.


  • Options
    #979
    Mr. Loverman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,001 ✭✭✭Mr. Loverman


    Caesar Augustus wrote: »
    I don't think the text of my reply indicated any kind of anger. Perhaps it conveys a certain perplexed frustration at someone who would insist on a theory being so fluidic as to be unstable. Of course it could be in need of modification, such is the life of theory.

    And like I said, I'd be happy to modify it tomorrow if the need arose. That is what Science is all about, I'm sure you'll agree.

    :)

    I never said it is unstable. I am 99% sure evolution is right. But the 1% prevents me from saying it is a rock solid fact and prevents me from shouting at people about evolution.


  • Options
    #980
    Mr. Loverman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,001 ✭✭✭Mr. Loverman


    Helix wrote: »
    why does there have to be a meaning to life, and why do you have to be here for a reason?

    cant you simply be here as a result?

    Another thread I think... :)


  • Options
    #981
    MrStuffins
    Registered Users Posts: 19,191 ✭✭✭✭MrStuffins


    Mr. Loverman wrote: »
    Well you're coming across as a very arrogant person.

    Honestly I spend a lot of time thinking about the meaning of life and that includes the whole concept of existence. I have no answer to it. All I know is I am here for some reason, I do appear to exist, but I have no clue why I exist or what I'm supposed to be doing with my life.

    Sorry about that. Perhaps my frustration is getting the better of me.

    So i have established here that i think that my existence is a fact and you think, because there is the slightest margin for error, you don't take it as fact.

    That is fine.

    Then there is no problem here. The only problem is that perhaps you need a lot more certainty, perhaps absolute certainty, before you will qualify something as being a "fact".


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #982
    NoQuarter
    Registered Users Posts: 4,632 ✭✭✭NoQuarter


    I bet all you athiests celebrate christmas though dont yas!!!!


  • Options
    #983
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Saganist wrote: »
    I think evolution describes the process beautifully. Why do we need a need theory ?

    Because otherwise you would be committing the fallacy that I am too lazy to look up that states: [paraphrased from memory]
    Just because something is aesthetically beautiful or ugly doesn't mean it is true of untrue. In fact the beauty (or lack of it) of something has no bearing on the truth value of that something.


  • Options
    #984
    Marcus.Aurelius
    Registered Users Posts: 2,314 ✭✭✭Marcus.Aurelius


    Mr. Loverman wrote: »
    I never said it is unstable. I am 99% sure evolution is right. But the 1% prevents me from saying it is a rock solid fact and prevents me from shouting at people about evolution.

    I find an odd question floating around my head.

    If someone approached you and said the earth revolved around Saturn, would you think they were slightly deluded?

    If evolution is as we expect, 99.99999999% correct within the understood context thus far, why would we hesitate to defend it against those whose alternative has no evidence at all?


  • Options
    #985
    Saganist
    Registered Users Posts: 1,333 ✭✭✭Saganist


    NoQuarter wrote: »
    I bet all you athiests celebrate christmas though dont yas!!!!

    Sure. Whats wrong with that ?


  • Options
    #986
    MrStuffins
    Registered Users Posts: 19,191 ✭✭✭✭MrStuffins


    NoQuarter wrote: »
    I bet all you athiests celebrate christmas though dont yas!!!!

    Stu ya f*ck! You were here last night, don't start that again! :pac:


  • Options
    #987
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Mr. Loverman wrote: »
    Well you're coming across as a very arrogant person.

    Honestly I spend a lot of time thinking about the meaning of life and that includes the whole concept of existence. I have no answer to it. All I know is I am here for some reason, I do appear to exist, but I have no clue why I exist or what I'm supposed to be doing with my life.

    You see, you're looking for metaphysics where none exist. Who says that theres something you're supposed to be doing? As for why you exist - your parents got together etc and so on.


  • Options
    #988
    Saganist
    Registered Users Posts: 1,333 ✭✭✭Saganist


    Malty_T wrote: »
    Because otherwise you would be committing the fallacy that I am too lazy to look up that states: [paraphrased from memory]
    Just because something is aesthetically beautiful or ugly doesn't mean it is true of untrue. In fact the beauty (or lack of it) of something has no bearing on the truth value of that something.

    True. But evolution is tested daily and corrected daily. That is its strength


  • Options
    #989
    rubadub
    Registered Users Posts: 32,381 ✭✭✭✭rubadub


    NoQuarter wrote: »
    I bet all you athiests celebrate christmas though dont yas!!!!

    Most workplaces force employees to take some of their legally entitled holidays at that time of year, so its no wonder if they do appear to celebrate. If the tradition was for Irish businesses to shut down during Ramadan I imagine many athiests & catholics would appear to "celebrate" it too, even though they might resent having to take those days off.

    Christmas has feck all to do with religion for many people, even many of those who call themselves Christians.


  • Options
    #990
    My name is URL
    Registered Users Posts: 25,068 ✭✭✭✭My name is URL


    scientific1982 wrote: »
    Doesnt matter if it hasnt been applied. The law is still there and could be applied in the future. Its still illegal to make blasphemous comments.
    scientific1982 wrote: »
    Article 10 (1) of the European Human Rights Convention states that "Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas, without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers."

    This human right has been taken away from us. We no longer have freedom of speech in this country

    Well I can't speak for anyone else but I've never had someone tell me that I'm not free to hold an opinion, and I've never been arrested for sharing an opinion. The law, as stupid as it is; has quite a nice defense
    A defense is permitted for work of "genuine literary, artistic, political, scientific, or academic value"


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #991
    Marcus.Aurelius
    Registered Users Posts: 2,314 ✭✭✭Marcus.Aurelius


    Malty_T wrote: »
    Because otherwise you would be committing the fallacy that I am too lazy to look up that states: [paraphrased from memory]
    Just because something is aesthetically beautiful or ugly doesn't mean it is true of untrue. In fact the beauty (or lack of it) of something has no bearing on the truth value of that something.

    I think you are confusing one form of beauty (elegant simplicity & supporting evidence) with another (oooh, that's shiny/pretty).


Advertisement