You're hopeless. You can't read. Or think coherently. Hint: IF SOMETHING IS A TRUTH, THEN IT CAN'T BE FALSE!
Atheism = Farce!
- Thread starter Incocknito
- Start date
- Status
Dude, I'm a 26 year old computer technician who hasn't finished college yet. I speak and understand as a common man....so excuse the fuck outta me if I don't understand some of shit you say. You intentionally speak so enigmatic that I have to ask follow up questions. If you don't feel like answering, don't fuckin' answer...spare me the pretentious "you're not smart enough to understand" shit...
So.... what makes something a "truth"...in your eyes?
9InchJezmo
Sexy Member
and we have dangerous christian teaching material being sent from america to our schools teaching out kids that the moon is 6000 years old, so dont give me the ' oh we are only trying to find solace in our delusions' crap
9InchJezmo
Sexy Member
I will thank you I have two degrees and I have yet to hear from you any reason why you cling to your delusional fantasies, the person who deserve pity is the one who spends his life on his knees to some fictional entity.
if schools in america teach creationism and all the bullshit that goes with that then we ,well america is going to end up in a new dark age.
Last edited:
My questions is what do you deem those things? Why are they considered true if they're immune to scientific testing? I thought science was used to determine what is true and what isn't. I COULD be misunderstood. Guess I'll just wait for Aqua to respond...
Last edited:
9InchJezmo
Sexy Member
In what way does your distorted logic suggest that mathematical propositions are immune to scientific testing ?
On which planet is mathematics not a science?
Oh sorry planet fundamental christian america of course how silly of me.
Well act like it!
Post #908 addressed this. Now...either you choose to ignore it...or you missed it. Either way, there it is again...just click.
Again...you ignorantly ASSUME you know me, or the way I practice my religion. You have NO evidence to support ANY of your claims or assumptions...none whatsoever....
9InchJezmo
Sexy Member
deeply stupid people who call atheism a farce then try to peddle fundamentalist christism as a science.
You are here, as in all your other postings in this thread, gratuitously obnoxious, but I will disregard that.
Mathematical propositions are subject to mathematical proof, not scientific testing. Scientific inquiry into nature simply presupposes the soundness of mathematics and does not test it.
AquaEyes11010
Expert Member
Yes, but as with a person saying things which can't be tested but MAY be true, one can't count on religion as being reliable or valid. Could it/he/she be telling the truth about some things? Maybe, but since it's/he's/she's lied or just plain been wrong so many times before, it really doesn't matter. Better to base decisions on something else.
Last edited:
I can respect that....
But does the discussion always have to lead to insults? I get that alot of people feel that Christianity, or religion as a whole, is fairy tale....but without being able to test it, why do people feel arrogant enough to ridicule it and it's followers?
AquaEyes11010
Expert Member
I can respect that....
But does the discussion always have to lead to insults? I get that alot of people feel that Christianity, or religion as a whole, is fairy tale....but without being able to test it, why do people feel arrogant enough to ridicule it and it's followers?
If it can't be tested and shown to be false, then it didn't use any testing or evidence to be shown to be true -- and is thus just made-up, based on "because I said so." For that reason alone I personally find it to not be of any use. But for some people, it's enough to make them feel better, and so the stories remain.
9InchJezmo
Sexy Member
Because fundamentalist Christians are dangerous
have you read this The Landover Baptist Church Forum
its both frightening and hysterically funny at the same time, I ve no idea if its supposed to be funny but some of the ideas on there are really really scary.
That's fine...and those "god hates fags" idiots can be grouped right along with the patrons of that forum... But DO NOT attribute that type of behavior to every person who identifies themselves as Christian. THAT is bigot-like behavior.
Then..When are..why don't Christians and other religious peoples rise up en masse against this bigot-like Christian behavior? because there are approx. 41,000 different Christian denominations around the world
For the same reason casual, moderate Muslims do not rise up en masse against their weirdos? Because there are 73 different sects of Islam around the world!
The same reason Jewish people do not protest and rise up en masse against the Zionist..because there are 5 or 6 Jewish "movements "around the world..
..so, in a sense...some believers/theists will shrug it off with a flippant, "well, I sure don't believe in that.."; Which is alright for them because they learned a different Interpretation of the bible/Koran/Tanakh, read different scriptures..etc. But for the others non-theists who get caught up in between all of these secular squabbles..life can get scary.*
You calling those Westboro Baptists idiots is one thing, but extrapolate a Suuni vs. Shia confrontation onto the Corporate Christian Fundamentalist vs a non-secular democracy..then what do you say?
Meanwhile, 2+2=4 (math), the earth rotates and revolves around the Sun, different areas around the world have differing ways of measuring the months and days and time differently..calling months by different names and going by different calendars..and nobody gets riled up over this.. Nobody gets upset about the differences in measuring..UNTIL it comes to MONEY!!
..and then all RELIGIONS are all the same
Last edited:
And why can't the common, decent man rise up and protest the ignorance that runs rampant through the media, economy, environment, government...hell, everyday life? Because at the end of the day, it's always easier to be an ignorant jack ass who follows something so blindly to the point of causing harm to others.... than to think for yourself, and follow something that orginally was aimed at HELPING man out of the shit he get's himself into.
That's MAN's doing. Do you think Jesus Christ intended for his teaching to be used the way they are sometimes?!
If I were to start a religion today (The House of The Shirtless Man in Gray shorts) and it was to gain a world wide following...it would only be a matter of time before it would be misread, misconstrued, perverted, and twisted into a way for some(or someone) to control others, and for material gain. That's the way of MAN. Ever seen the movie "The Mist"? That movie is literally only 20% about the monsters. If you haven't seen it....watch it. Or "Blindness".... Watch either...
Apparently this post of mine was excessively terse for more than one reader:
When NC_BBC asked me whether I "can subscribe to the idea that there are things out there that science can't test that may be true" (#936), I cited these kinds of propositions to show that there are plenty of propositions immune to scientific testing that not only may be true but are true, and are known to be true; but that such propositions do not necessarily have any bearing on transcendent cosmological questions, which are the questions that I think he had in mind.
Now if, on the other hand, the question had been: "Do you accept that there may be answers to transcendent cosmological questions that are true but that cannot be scientifically tested?", I would have to give a different answer. I would say, first of all, that if the questions are genuinely transcendent, that means right off that they are beyond any possible scientific testing. I don't have in mind any very precise definition of the term "transcendent," but I take it to be a way of putting everything that can be known about the universe through scientific inquiry on one side and gesturing toward whatever--if anything--is left.
So the part of the question about scientific testing is superfluous. The question can be simplified to: "May there be true answers to transcendent cosmological questions?" And my answer to that--barring the possibility that the term "transcendent" may be applied in some way that I have failed to anticipate--is "No." I don't think that such questions have any true answers. Some answers may be more interesting than others, and some answers may express an attitude toward life that I can share while others express an attitude that I can only despise (and I believe that there can be rational criticism and defense of such attitudes). But I do not believe that any answers to such questions are true. It follows, of course, that no answers are false either.
Taking each sort of case individually:
- Mathematics: I can't go testing whether 2 + 2 = 4 by counting out two items and two more items and then counting the lot to see if there are four of them. It may happen that, owing to something going wrong in the experiment, I find in the final count that there are three or five or any other number. If it does, then we just say that I made a mistake. Such empirical contingencies have no bearing on the soundness of mathematics. Similarly, if someone claims to have measured the circumference and the diameter of a circle and to have found their ratio to be, to two significant digits, 3.15 rather than 3.14, no competent person will take this to cast doubt on the formula "circumference = pi x diameter,"or to raise doubts about the hitherto accepted decimal expansion of pi; rather, we say that this is just an instance of inexactness in measurement. We use mathematics to determine what we are observing in empirical investigations: we cannot use empirical investigations to test mathematics.
- Propositions of logic are a more difficult case to explain, because you need to understand the formal calculus before you can even formulate an example. But the general idea is the same as in the case of mathematics: You need to follow logic in order to make or find an empirical example of some point of logic. So, if you think that you have found an example that is contrary to logic, we conclude, not that you have actually done so, but that you have made a mistake in the setup or in the interpretation of your example.
- "Analytical proposition" is a technical term from philosophy. I won't try to explain its full meaning, as for present purposes it is enough to consider the one example that I gave: "No bachelor is married." It is senseless to propose to test this proposition empirically, since "being unmarried" is understood already in the very word "bachelor." In such a case there is nothing to test: someone who does not know that "bachelor" implies "not married" does not understand the word "bachelor" and is not competent to use it in the first place. So, again, the proposition is true but not testable.
- Interpretative and evaluative judgments are much more difficult to account for. The idea that I had in mind is that they come down to intuitions of cases: you either see something or you don't, and if you don't, you may be stupid or prejudiced or perverse, but we can't appeal to any scientific testing to show that you haven't seen it.
When NC_BBC asked me whether I "can subscribe to the idea that there are things out there that science can't test that may be true" (#936), I cited these kinds of propositions to show that there are plenty of propositions immune to scientific testing that not only may be true but are true, and are known to be true; but that such propositions do not necessarily have any bearing on transcendent cosmological questions, which are the questions that I think he had in mind.
Now if, on the other hand, the question had been: "Do you accept that there may be answers to transcendent cosmological questions that are true but that cannot be scientifically tested?", I would have to give a different answer. I would say, first of all, that if the questions are genuinely transcendent, that means right off that they are beyond any possible scientific testing. I don't have in mind any very precise definition of the term "transcendent," but I take it to be a way of putting everything that can be known about the universe through scientific inquiry on one side and gesturing toward whatever--if anything--is left.
So the part of the question about scientific testing is superfluous. The question can be simplified to: "May there be true answers to transcendent cosmological questions?" And my answer to that--barring the possibility that the term "transcendent" may be applied in some way that I have failed to anticipate--is "No." I don't think that such questions have any true answers. Some answers may be more interesting than others, and some answers may express an attitude toward life that I can share while others express an attitude that I can only despise (and I believe that there can be rational criticism and defense of such attitudes). But I do not believe that any answers to such questions are true. It follows, of course, that no answers are false either.
- Status
Similar threads
