Atheism = Farce!

[NC_BBC]

Who made it unfair? Who is making the claim that God exists? Who has the burden of proving this claim?

I guess the easiest way for me to explain how I feel is....science is easy, faith is hard. 2 + 2 = 4.... it doesn't take ANYTHING to accept that as a truth. It's easily proven. But to believe in something which has many unanswered questions takes a certain strength. Some may see it as ignorance though.

The Wright brothers had an idea. To many it was preposterous....but they followed their beliefs and ideas to the brink....to bring us air travel.

I personally believe that all ideas (and some facts) start out as faiths....something one believes but can't YET prove.

Knowledge is steadily increasing, so why do you think this won't continue to the point where we really can explain everything? To Fuzzy, this seems inevitable, and may happen sooner than you think.

Noooo Fuzzy...I fully believe we MAY one day get there....if we don't kill our planet (and subsequently ourselves) first. But I don't think the human race will be around long enough to get there....because of the aforementioned problem. But as I said (essentially) in post #350, we're all seekers of the truth. And I hope one day we will meet in the middle. I believe those who TRULY seek the truth are capable of open minded thinking...and acceptance once theories on either side are proven. I, a blind believer, will have to let go of somethings and accept some things from your side...and you, the skeptic, will have to do the same. But I think we will (if humanity survives long enough) reach a common truth.

Fuzzy agrees that you can trust science. There is a common belief that scientists make efforts to prove their theories. In fact, they (and their peers, and the scientific community as a whole) try to disprove their theories. After an exhaustive attempt that may take decades, if the theory holds, it's considered to be reliable. Religion does not have this kind of built-in rigor.

Is religion not a man-made construct? The existence of God is still up for debate, and many claims of many religions must be wrong because they conflict with each other. Of course, "my religion is the only correct religion" is the natural response, but is it the responsible response? As Granny Wuzzy said, "God gave you a brain. Use it."

"Organized" religion is a man-made construct. Subject to allllll the imperfections of man...just like science, and government/politics. Some use religion as a weapon (god hates fags)...the same way some use science as a weapon (nukes, bio-warfare). "Science" is the "understanding of the world around you. Science doesn't CREATE the world around you, that world was here way before "science" came to be. Just like Organized Religion didn't CREATE god...

I, for one, am not the type of person to point a finger at ANYONE'S beliefs and tell them they are wrong based on a "lack of proof"...because my own beliefs are full of holes I can't quite fill yet.

This seems to conflict with the "God is perfection" argument. A rational argument can be made that, "If God is perfect, why did he create imperfect people?" If we're not fully utilizing our brains, it seems that we're intrinsically flawed. Why did God make us so flawed? If it's to test us and help us grow to become better, then why didn't He just make us better in the first place? Anyway, Fuzzy avoids these rational arguments for this very reason... they are never-ending and often tautological.

Why would God put you in that car accident? This seems cruel to Fuzzy.

There are many situations that Fuzzy has been in that weren't apparently explainable, but what does this have to do with God?

I don't believe the conventional idea that god is "perfect" and all knowing. Perfection is relative (in my opinion). What is perfect to some may be morbidly flawed to others. Read post #347. That's my honest opinion on god the being. But I could be wrong. In the bible god says " I am a jealous and vengeful god"... Jealousy being the by-product of an incomplete or imperfect being. In my opinion. Things happen that I DON'T believe god saw coming. But is it within his power to fix the resulting problems? I believe so....

Assuming that we only us a fraction of our brains, which Fuzzy doubts, why does that preclude the fact that we may be able to understand everything? Maybe understanding everything isn't that difficult. We already understand that there may be 11 universes, that vibrating strings may compose matter and energy, and that there may be a "big rip" that destroys us all. We can even describe what the universe looked like nanoseconds after the big bang. Our forefathers could not have imagined these concepts. As Arthur C. Clarke stated, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

But I'm under the impression that man is NO WHERE NEAR understanding this universe and this realm of existence. It's TOO VAST...in every direction. And I feel that humanities claim to "being close" to an answer is arrogant. I think man is (figuratively) running a race that it THINKS is almost over, without full understanding the magnitude or length of the race it's running.

We ARE closer than we were...but not nearly as close as we think.

Can you give Fuzzy an example of a situation that brought God to you? It seems dogmatic to assume that not finding a logical explanation means that God made it so.

A small one...

I'm a pot smoker. Not addicted, but I enjoy it. There are 3 instances of great importance where I've smoked less than 72 hours before having to take a drug test....and passed. Different situations at different times in my life...all of great importance to my well being (not probation or anything)...
Explanation

 

[NC_BBC]

Fuzzy has no problem with religious types who want to charm snakes while flailing about and speaking tongues on a church floor. Fuzzy has a problem when they try to impose their moral beliefs and values on him.

Take last month's diatribe by Michelle Bachmann. Dismayed at current events, she wants Americans to fight against Islamic jihad and gay marriage. She is calling for legislation based on her dominion-esque beliefs taken from a highly-edited and transcribed document written by goat herders thousands of years ago.

Bachmann urges ‘spiritual warfare’ to impose religious values on government | The Raw Story

While speaking at a Liberty Council conference, Bachmann encouraged the crowd to focus on "spiritual warfare" to impose religious values on government.

From the article:

“You see, if we retreat from our values and fail to make the case on issues like marriage, because it is one man, one woman — because God said it is, not because it’s poll tested, because God said it is,” she said in video that surfaced online Monday thanks to Right Wing Watch.

“And life, not because it’s poll tested, because God stands for life,” she continued. “He made us in his image and likeness. And if we tread too softly on issues like taking on Islamic jihad, and if we fight too timidly and if we strive too meekly, then I think we all understand, we very easily could come face to face with defeat and then our nation would, in fact, pay a great and a lasting price, one that none of us wants to face.”
​

To a doubter, this is absurd. God said this and that and whatever without any proof. Considering that the Bible is regarded as unreliable to many doubters, how would you expect them to react to claims that the God from the Bible wants legislation to get passed? The fact that religion can be easily hijacked should be an indication that it may be inherently fallacious.

I wanted to address this separately....

I fully understand your frustration at this....and understand, that even I am frustrated by these tactics.

Just because we share a common belief does not mean her and I would agree on how to approach non believers.

I'm not with the "shove it down their throats until they take it" committee. Noooooooooo. This is the type of attitude that causes people to shy COMPLETELY AWAY from any hint at religious teachings. For people like her it's all doom and gloom... "believe what I believe or god's gonna get ya"... They base their entire approach to religion on scare tactics!!! And I can't stand it...because it's THIS type of attitude that causes people to become completely numb to any religious words whatsoever....proving to be completely counterproductive to "the cause"...

People like her forget the parts of the bible like "....let he who is without sin..." [John 8:7]. They become tainted by the way the world does things (usually by force) that they forget the teaching of Jesus Christ. Who was NOT a forceful man...but lead by example. You wanna end war...stop waging it! You wanna fix the economy...FIND a way to weed out the greed that has strangled it to the point of collapse....

Jesus was an amazing man...whether you believe he was the son of god, or just a prophet, his TEACHINGS are without a doubt, in my mind, well worth a try.

 

[NC_BBC]

If God exists then He should stand all tests of doubt, no?

How can something so complex, stand all tests of doubt...when the "tester" isn't fully capable of understanding the world around itself?

Try to explain human reproduction to a toddler. The toddler my understand 2 things....mommy and daddy.

Try again at age 10....the 10 year old may understand more...but not the full "scientific" idea of sexual reproduction.

Try again at 15... the 15 year old may understand a lot more about the process, but can you say you understood it all (sex) at 15? And could you trust a 15 year old to responsibly handle it's new-found and understood "abilities" to procreate? (I was responsible...but probably not as responsible as my parents would've liked)

At 21 the idea is probably fully understood and responsibly utilized (depending on the individual of course)....

My point is... I think we're at the toddler stage of understanding it all...(relatively) nowhere near the mature age at which the organism can full understand it's purpose and abilities. But in comparison to the age of the universe... we (humans) aren't even infants yet....

So in my opinion, it takes a certain level of arrogance to believe that even if god sat down with you (like in Bruce Almighty) and explained everything...you, I, or any human would understand it....RIGHT NOW.

 

[701757]

the·o·ry

/ˈTHēərē/
Noun

• A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, esp. one based on general principles independent of the thing to be...: "Darwin's theory of evolution"
• A set of principles on which the practice of an activity is based: "a theory of education"; "music theory".

When I say "creation theory" I mean the THEORY (and yes, I know how to use the fucking word) that things were all CREATED by one being.


It's a THEORY because it's an IDEA used to explain (whether you believe in it or not has no bearing here) something that has yet to be CONCLUSIVELY explained.


Do not attempt to make me out to be some idiot using words he doesn't understand. I pick and choose my words carefully, I mean what I say, and I say exactly what the fuck I mean. Abandon your attempt at "teaching" me...and stick to the subject matter or stop posting in this thread. Thank you.

I'm afraid you have not even a clue as to what the word theory means in the scientific world.

 

[NC_BBC]

I'm afraid you have not even a clue as to what the word theory means in the scientific world.

At what point did you assume I cared about the scientific world?

Don't be "afraid"....the people who I intended to speak to understood what I was saying just fine...if you didn't....:dunno:...I don't really care...because it seems you have nothing to really contribute to the conversation.

 

[701757]

At what point did you assume I cared about the scientific world?

Don't be "afraid"....the people who I intended to speak to understood what I was saying just fine...if you didn't....:dunno:...I don't really care...because it seems you have nothing to really contribute to the conversation.

I'm simply trying to correct you. There is no such thing as the "theory of creation". By the scientific definition of theory, creation cannot be a theory. It's not even a hypothesis because it fails "testability". It's the likes of you who like to twist the meaning of the word theory to try and convince people that theory just means something that doesn't have enough evidence to graduate into a law, which is complete utter misinformation.

 

[NC_BBC]

I'm simply trying to correct you. There is no such thing as the "theory of creation". By the scientific definition of theory, creation cannot be a theory. It's not even a hypothesis because it fails "testability". It's the likes of you who like to twist the meaning of the word theory to try and convince people that theory just means something that doesn't have enough evidence to graduate into a law, which is complete utter misinformation.

So the theory of relativity was what...before being formally deemed "A theory"?

Let me say this...and I'll say it once.

If I so choose to use the word "fly" to describe something that is actually "gliding"...I don't really care. The people who I intended to understand that post understood it well and continued the conversation. If YOU are incapable of reading the whole post based on YOUR PERCEIVED misuse of the word "theory"...I don't really care. Because the subject matter at hand is not the proper use of "scientific terms"... but something bigger.
In addition to your ignorance you fail to acknowledge what the rest of the world accepts as the definition of the word theory.

1: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another

2: abstract thought : speculation

3: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>

4a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn>
b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances &#8212;often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>

5: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>

6a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation
b : an unproved assumption : conjecture
c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>



A theory isn't something that has to be proven true in order to BE a theory. I have a theory that you have no idea what you're talking about. Whether that's true or not has no bearing on my use of the word...It's a hypothetical idea that I have.....I COULD test it....but don't care to do so....

 

[701757]

Wow haha I'm sorry but you're just spouting nonsense.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."

"The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, which is measured by its ability to make falsifiable predictions with respect to those phenomena. Theories are improved as more evidence is gathered, so that accuracy in prediction improves over time."

"Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.[3] This is significantly different from the word "theory" in common usage, which implies that something is unsubstantiated or speculative."

"A common misconception is that scientific theories are rudimentary ideas that will eventually graduate into scientific laws when enough data and evidence has been accumulated. A theory does not change into a scientific law with the accumulation of new or better evidence. A theory will always remain a theory; a law will always remain a law.
Theories and laws are also distinct from hypotheses. Unlike hypotheses, theories and laws may be simply referred to as scientific fact."

Happy now?

 

[NC_BBC]

Wow haha I'm sorry but you're just spouting nonsense.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

"A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."

"The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, which is measured by its ability to make falsifiable predictions with respect to those phenomena. Theories are improved as more evidence is gathered, so that accuracy in prediction improves over time."

"Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.[3] This is significantly different from the word "theory" in common usage, which implies that something is unsubstantiated or speculative."

"A common misconception is that scientific theories are rudimentary ideas that will eventually graduate into scientific laws when enough data and evidence has been accumulated. A theory does not change into a scientific law with the accumulation of new or better evidence. A theory will always remain a theory; a law will always remain a law.
Theories and laws are also distinct from hypotheses. Unlike hypotheses, theories and laws may be simply referred to as scientific fact."

Smh....once again.... who said...I give...1 single fuck about the scientific world? As a matter of fact, I think one of my main points was to say that "my beliefs aren't grounded in scientific procedure"... At NO POINT did I say the theory of creationism was a "scientific theory". Did I? Didn't think so... So stop trying to "teach me" what a scientific theory is..because I don't give a shit. I'm not speaking in scientific theory. Also...you don't own patents or publishing rights to the word "theory" ...if I want to use it to describe the idea of my favorite color...that's my prerogative...
And I keep telling you...

I don't care if you can't read around a single "misused" word in a post. That's your small minded problem. Not mine. Fuzzy seems to be a pretty intelligent guy....somehow he got the idea of my post and continued with his own...you're the only person hung up on the "misuse" of a single word. Get over it. If you have nothing to contribute to the overall subject matter of the thread... stop posting.

Happy now?

I never gave a fuck to begin with....YOU'RE hung up on the "misuse" of the word...not me.

 

[701757]

Smh....once again.... who said...I give...1 single fuck about the scientific world? As a matter of fact, I think one of my main points was to say that "my beliefs aren't grounded in scientific procedures"... I copy pasted that definition from the merriam-webster website. So I guess they're "speaking nonsense" as well.

And I keep telling you...

I don't care if you can't read around a single "misused" word in a post. That's your small minded problem. Not mine. Fuzzy seems to be a pretty intelligent guy....somehow he got the idea of my post and continued with his own...you're the only person hung up on the "misuse" of a single word. Get over it. If you have nothing to contribute to the overall subject matter of the thread... stop posting.


I never gave a fuck to begin with....YOU'RE hung up on the "misuse" of the word...not me.

Lol why are you so angry? Too bad anger will not make creation into a theory.

This isn't just a misuse of the word. Your misuse is very intentional. Also, judging from what you said, you obviously don't know what theory actually means (hint: it means what I quoted in my last post). It's nice and funny when you nitwits go "Evolution is just a theory" but when the complete opposite is actually true, you go apeshit like you just did lol.

 

[NC_BBC]

Lol why are you so angry? Too bad anger will not make creation into a theory.

This isn't just a misuse of the word. Your misuse is very intentional. Also, judging from what you said, you obviously don't know what theory actually means (hint: it means what I quoted in my last post). It's nice and funny when you nitwits go "Evolution is just a theory" but when the complete opposite is actually true, you go apeshit like you just did lol.

When did I say "evolution is just a theory"? And explain to me when you became the sole owner of the word "theory"....

In short...you can't tell me how to use a word. You don't have the right. and as I said earlier...you're also the only person with the problem. The other contributors to this thread have had no problem with the post...I guess they're all idiots to you too?

So you assert that merriam-webster's definition:
6a : a hypothsesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation
b : an unproved assumption : conjecture
c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>

...is wrong....because you say so?

You somehow have come to the conclusion that the word "theory" belongs solely to the "scientific community"....when it doesn't.

 

[NC_BBC]

And my PERCEIVED anger doesn't come from you and I not sharing a common belief....because I can respect and consider anyone's beliefs... It comes from your lack of purpose here. Would you like to check the rest of my posts for misused words and phrases....or maybe grammar and punctuation? I knoooooow I use ellipsis completely out of context and proper usage...would you like to waste 6 or 7 pages of posts talking about it?

 

[701757]

When you say the theory of creation, you're asserting that it holds its grounds in the scientific community. If you didn't intend it that way, you might as well have said the speculation of creation.

 

[NC_BBC]

When you say the theory of creation, you're asserting that it holds its grounds in the scientific community. If you didn't intend it that way, you might as well have said the speculation of creation.

And I don't know what I'm talking about?! A "speculation" has more to do with BUSINESS than physical and metaphysical THEORIES!

Since you enjoy copy-pasting things from wikipedia:

Speculation
Speculative Reasoning

Here...read them all...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speculative

You're ATTEMPTING to be really smart and condescending...but you're failing miserably.

 

[NC_BBC]

Ever this doesn't help:

Speculative realism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the end...I don't care what you think the meaning of the word "theory" is... That's not what I came here to discuss. If you wish to have an English lesson on the use of terms then start a thread on it...and complain to your heart's content....

But THIS was a thread about atheism being "a farce". Not whatever the hell you're trying to turn it into.

 

[NC_BBC]

When you say the theory of creation, you're asserting that it holds its grounds in the scientific community. If you didn't intend it that way, you might as well have said the speculation of creation.

And for the record, I wasn't asserting anything. I used the word in a context that allowed me to convey myself to the people participating in the conversation. Never tried to turn creationism into anything that it isn't. It's an idea....some believe it, some don't. It has yet to be proven...but people are trying to prove AND disprove it....making it a THEORY....until it is proven to be a fact or a farce.

 

[Boobalaa]

When you say the theory of creation, you're asserting that it holds its grounds in the scientific community. If you didn't intend it that way, you might as well have said the speculation of creation.

:biggrin1::biggrin1:hear!! hear!!..I concur.Creation is FAITH BASED.When people call Creation a Theory, Have they ever called "Resurrection" a Theory?.. The "Easter Bunny" a theory?, "Santa Claus and the flying reindeer" a Theory?..
Calling Creation a Theory is the epitome of Religious Anti-Intellectualism..It is especially insulting and demeaning to children to force feed them this shit!!

two personal experiences;

1. A few weeks ago, my 11yo nephew who goes to a christian school was showing me his class project on the states. he was doing Georgia. he showed me a map he made of all the "God created" rivers and landforms
2. Last summer, during a camping trip up in the Cascades, I was showing the kids a road cut rock outcrop, pointing to a layer with rounded pebbles signifying that it was once under water..One of the kids, excitedly answered.."Oh you mean the Great Flood"..I didn't want to spoil his feelings, especially since his parents were watching..

 

[NC_BBC]

:biggrin1::biggrin1:hear!! hear!!..I concur.Creation is FAITH BASED.When people call Creation a Theory, Have they ever called "Resurrection" a Theory?.. The "Easter Bunny" a theory?, "Santa Claus and the flying reindeer" a Theory?..
Calling Creation a Theory is the epitome of Religious Anti-Intellectualism..It is especially insulting and demeaning to children to force feed them this shit!!

So...to you...there's no difference between Santa Clause and Jesus Christ?

And why do you 2 assume that a THEORY has to be proven true/fact before being deemed a THEORY? Is a theory not an idea in the working to either be prove true or false? Am I misreading: ?

per wiki:
Theory is a contemplative and rational type of abstract or generalizing thinking, or the results of such thinking. Depending on the context, the results might for example include generalized explanations of how nature works, or even how divine or metaphysical matters are thought to work

Per meriam-webster:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory

 

[701757]

Ever this doesn't help:

Speculative realism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the end...I don't care what you think the meaning of the word "theory" is... That's not what I came here to discuss. If you wish to have an English lesson on the use of terms then start a thread on it...and complain to your heart's content....

But THIS was a thread about atheism being "a farce". Not whatever the hell you're trying to turn it into.

Sigh, it's not about English. When people use the phrase "theory of" infront of something that isn't a theory, something religious, it always has malicious intentions behind it. General public has a hard enough time comprehending the actual meaning of the word theory when it's mentioned in a scientific context.

 

[NC_BBC]

Sigh, it's not about English. When people use the phrase "theory of" infront of something that isn't a theory, something religious, it always has malicious intentions behind it. General public has a hard enough time comprehending the actual meaning of the word theory when it's mentioned in a scientific context.

So you....are telling ME...what MY intentions (malicious) were? Didn't know you could read minds....especially through a computer screen...

Also...read post #378...and explain.

It seems to me that you (and maybe a few more people) have a belief on the meaning of the word theory.

A theory to me:
Is any thought or idea that has yet to undergo enough testing to be proven true or false.