Science vs Religion - Page 17

Warborn · 2012-04-06, 01:10 PM

Originally Posted by Malorn

I am agnostic, which is similar to athiests

Agnostic is simply a modifier for atheist. Most "atheists" are actually "agnostic atheists", in that they don't believe in god but they aren't certain there is not a god or gods.

Figment · 2012-04-06, 03:33 PM

@Malorn: you mean those trying to ban religious outings from those performing in public offices?

From a purely logical and objective pov, that's not really persecution or telling them what to believe. It's simply ensuring the state representatives do not appear biased in any way, shape of form.

(Even if they are since you can't take away their faiths and that's also not the intention).

If that's the problem you're on about, then meh. That's more secularism than atheism at work.

Originally Posted by Warborn

Agnostic is simply a modifier for atheist. Most "atheists" are actually "agnostic atheists", in that they don't believe in god but they aren't certain there is not a god or gods.

Technically yes, as they'd take a scientific outlook: what is, is, but you ahve to be able to verify it properly. Though I'd amplify that skepticismis a big part of that as they do not expect this verification possible, considering they don't think there's such an entity. Plus, you'd have to actually show undisputable evidence of a god would you ever want to convince those.

And I don't think anyone will ever see that in their lifetime, or eternity. Not even outside of time. Pun intended.

**Malorn** · 2012-04-06, 04:09 PM

Meh.

Effective · 2012-04-06, 09:02 PM

Originally Posted by Malorn

The irony being that there are vocal athiest groups doing the exact same thing they accuse religious groups doing - persecuting those who don't believe the same as they do.

And that is why hatred for athiest groups exist. I am agnostic, which is similar to athiests but I personally dislike most athiest groups because they are hypocrites and are generally mean and on their own anti-religious crusade. Bill Mahar is a great example of a grade A asshole douchebag turd nugget intolerant sexist bigot assmaggot.

Hatred for atheists have existed for far longer then atheists "Persecuting" religious groups. I'm not sure I consider making sure the government follows the law is persecuting.

Figment · 2012-04-07, 04:47 AM

Originally Posted by Effective

Hatred for atheists have existed for far longer then atheists "Persecuting" religious groups. I'm not sure I consider making sure the government follows the law is persecuting.

Think the problem is they perceive it as atheists pushing their agenda, as nobody can ban atheism from public office because it has no symbolism or rites or other stuff. So maybe they feel that no religious symbols is forcing atheism?

Which is an utter misrepresentation of the actual reasons. Then again, difference of opinion in what is a personal and public outing. And of course from the secular pov, a religious symbol is a form of promotion (and part of clergical agenda).

Traak · 2012-04-07, 05:35 AM

Originally Posted by Figment

Think about it. That has nothing to do with being an atheist, it's everything to do with you having prejudices and being judgmental about a group of people based on them being "sinful" by a definition you got out of a stone age book. Don't judge lest you be judged yourself, remember? We're judging you as you are others and you simply don't like the outcome, like we don't like your judgment.

Homosexuality is a sin, as delineated in the Bible. Just like having sex with animals, rape, sex outside marriage.

Originally Posted by Figment

You've consistently used character assaults yourself in every debate I've seen you in. In fact, this post again is a character assault on - as usual - a large generalised group, this time atheists.

Saying homosexuality, child molestation, and whatever other things are sins are sins isn't a character assault. It's stating what the Bible says.

Originally Posted by Figment

etc.

The reason the homosexuals have gotten so hostile is that it cuts at the very foundation of their dogma to state that it's a sin, and thus a choice.

If homosexuality was not a choice, how is it that boys who were raped by male adults homosexuals are more likely to be homosexuals when, if, they grow up? The adult male homosexual rapists just managed to somehow luckily select the ones who were born homosexual and helped liberate them from the bondage of thinking they were straight by forced sodomy?

If homosexuality was, as homosexuals publicly claim, something they were born into, then the number of men who are homosexual who had been raped by adult male homosexuals when they were boys, would be identical, statistically to men who were homosexuals who had never been forcibly sodomized.

But it isn't the same. Child molesters more often come from a background of being molested as a child, wife beaters from that background, etc. Having a background that moved you towards something doesn't mean you were born that way.

I know it isn't politically popular among homosexuals to state that their lifestyle is a choice, and it's a sin, but it doesn't erode the fact that the Bible says it is. I'm not claiming that you believe the Bible. Evidently, almost everyone on this forum is an atheist, and evidently, the majority are homosexuals also, which tells me more about the people I play against in this game. But having the most voices doesn't change anything, just like cheaters outnumbering non-cheating players changes that fact that cheating is bad.

CutterJohn · 2012-04-07, 07:02 AM

Originally Posted by Malorn

an athiest disbelieves without hard evidence.

Its not a belief. Its an observation. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but with zero evidence at all the only position one can take is of disbelief until facts prove otherwise.

If well reasoned theories posit somethings existence, but proof cannot be supplied, then you can be an agnostic.

Simply saying 'Anything is possible, i guess' is meaningless drivel. Nobody believes in unicorns for a reason. No proof.

Originally Posted by Traak

If homosexuality was, as homosexuals publicly claim, something they were born into, then the number of men who are homosexual who had been raped by adult male homosexuals when they were boys, would be identical, statistically to men who were homosexuals who had never been forcibly sodomized.

Could it not be that social norms keep a lot of people in the closet, and those molestations serve as a catalyst to make some more open about it? Living as a gay person is a choice, yes.. They don't have to do it. The attractions are not a choice. And if it were, how many people do you think would have chosen the ostracism and stigmatization of being gay? Such an amazing choice, especially in the past when you'd be put to death/imprisoned/castrated/tortured/etc for doing it. Very, very few would ever choose that.

All of that is irrelevant, though, since what two consenting adults do to each other is, quite simply, none of your business.

Oh, and if you want more fun facts.. Homophobes show more signs of arousal when shown pictures of naked people of their sex. Seems many are just in the closet and do not like it.

Figment · 2012-04-07, 07:59 AM

So Traak, after reading that senseless pseudo-psychology dribble you posted there, why would homosexuality, if it's not a natural occurance, exist in the first place?

According to you, if it's all some sort of psychologicaly induced trauma due to molestation or other abuse, how come that homosexuals exist who come from environments where none of that was the case?

And also explain me why there are animals that have homosexual tendencies if it's not natural?

Stop the insulting dribble, it's not just insulting towards homosexuals, but insulting towards psychology and human intellect in general. That your friends say it's a choice, wouldn't have anything to do with the environment they've been brought up in that says it's a sin and a choice, right? That it has nothing to do with the pyschological trauma inflicting "healing" sessions and prejudism existing within the hardcore bibilicist communities? That it has nothing to do with you lot telling them from their birth that their "type" of person is unnatural, defected and a sinful choice?

NO WAY that this could even hypothetically be a consequence of living in a zealot community. I mean, how could it possibly be any other way than how you've been taught?

Traak, you're vying for the title of "most indoctrinated person I've ever met on the internet". And that's saying something.

BUT IT'S IN THE BIBLE, SO IT MUST BE TRUE!

Yeah. So it says that bats are birds. Must be true! These people knew the secrets of the universe before the telescope was even invented! THEY CANNOT BE WRONG!

I respect Greek philosophers for their work and attempts to bring the world in focus through observations and rational thought. Much more than I respect theologists, but even they were wrong on a lot of counts.

But at least Erastosthenes knew the world was round and exactly how large it was, 2.200 years ago. Took the rest of the world a bit longer to figure it out. 1492, wasn't it?

For the record, the Bible states the world is flat and circular.
http://www.theskepticalreview.com/tsrmag/1flat90.html

EDIT: Skydome storing the water for rain is also fun.

CutterJohn · 2012-04-07, 09:02 AM

Originally Posted by Figment

But at least Erastosthenes knew the world was round and exactly how large it was, 2.200 years ago. Took the rest of the world a bit longer to figure it out. 1492, wasn't it?

Nah. It was common knowledge then. The Columbus was the only one to think the world is flat thing started as a bad history book or something in the 1800s. He disagreed with everyone else, but he thought it was much smaller than the commonly accepted(and mostly correct) estimation at the time, and was mocked as a fool. He was supremely wrong, and was only saved from a miserable death at sea because he lucked onto a continent.

**Malorn** · 2012-04-07, 11:46 AM

Meh.

CutterJohn · 2012-04-07, 05:17 PM

Originally Posted by Malorn

Failure to observe something is not evidence of its non-existence. This is a fact real scientists know well.

Real scientists also know that claims made in the absence of evidence require some well reasoned justification to be believed.

Red Beard · 2012-04-07, 05:22 PM

Concerning Agnostics; how do they know it's unknowable? lol

Red Beard · 2012-04-07, 05:23 PM

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

Real scientists also know that claims made in the absence of evidence require some well reasoned justification to be believed.

Like, 'the fundamental building block of matter'?

Warborn · 2012-04-07, 09:29 PM

Originally Posted by Malorn

No, it is not. Athiesm is a rejection of belief in deities. Agnosticism claims that truth about deities is unknowable. To an agnostic an athiest is just as incorrect as a believer. While a believer believes without hard evidence an athiest disbelieves without hard evidence. They are two ends of a spectrum. An agnostic believes that the truth is unknowable, so he cannot side with one or another.

This isn't the way the assertions work, though. The person who makes an extraordinary claim is the one required to provide the evidence for it. If I were to tell you that I am an alien from outer space, would you be obliged to be on the fence about my claim because you have no evidence either way? Of course not. You'd ask me to prove it, and if I couldn't you'd tell me I'm full of shit.

The proposition that there is a god is the same way. Do you believe in the tenets of Islam? Can you prove, with hard evidence, that Muhammad did not in fact receive the information contained within the Qur'an from the archangel Gabriel? Are you therefore obliged to be on the fence about whether Islam is true?

And on and on. Everyday in your life you're presented with the opinions and assertions of people in politics, at the workplace, wherever. The stuff you feel has evidence to back it you probably accept. The stuff you feel doesn't have evidence to back it, you reject. There's no reason to treat religious beliefs or belief in a god or gods any differently.

And, incidentally, while the definition of "atheist" is rather vague, atheists like Richard Dawkins define themselves as I've mentioned. Dawkins is indeed an agnostic atheist in that he does not claim to be certain there is not a god, but simply has not found evidence to indicate there is one.

**Malorn** · 2012-04-08, 04:54 AM

Meh.