Attention Atheist

crackerboy

crackerboy

Active Member
mindphuk said:
Quit crying. You made a post on RUI that was not made out to be an opinion. You made definitive statements that at the same time made a backhanded insult to those of us that create and use such technology that you and babs so readily deride.

Now you bitch and moan about just being an opinion or an observation. NOW you use "may" and "my opinion" but we know better. You also accuse me of not seeing the "logic" in your statement, yet you seemed to not understand my responses yet you continued to engage me with a response. It appeared that you wanted to dialogue but when you had enough of your impossible position of trying to defend your initial attacks, you accuse me of being hypercritical and over analytical.

Well fuck you and I'm sorry but I get tired of stupid theistic attacks on human advancement through science. Let's be honest, you hate that your stupid arguments are ripped apart because you want immunity from saying such ridiculous things. Every new step in science and technology seems to be an insult to invisible sky man worshipers and now when you get called out on your bullshit you attempt to turn the tables and make me the bad guy. Sorry but crap is exposed for all to see.
Click to expand...

I was not making an argument. I was commenting on the irony of the subject. There was nothing definitive about that statement. I was not even commenting to you. So for you to jump in and insist that I do this or that I'm not doing that is just ridiculous. Why is it so hard for you to accept that people can have other views than you? You at no point where trying to have a dialog with me. You where just being the normal arrogant dick that you normally are. You have not debunked anything. The only thing you have accomplished is to show every body how much of an ass you are. Congratulations you have been awarded the thread Nazi award. Ohh yeah I will continue to post my "stupid theistic attacks" any time I please and will do so just to annoy you for now on. Just so you know I work with this same technology that you worship everyday. I don't have a problem with technology. I have a problem with overzealous closed minded bullies like yourself and Pad. You two troll these threads and insult everyone that has a different point of view than you. I get more + REPS from arguing with you two than anything else. So what does that tell you. It tells me that people are glad to see someone else opinion thats not constantly full of negativity and arrogance. Its hilarious how upset you get when people don't bow down to your all knowing attitudes. If your so stuck on the rules of debate than why are you trying to debate with stoners. Why won't you go debate some real scientists? Is it because its easier to maintain that ego when people are to stoned to bother arguing with you.
 
Heisenberg

Heisenberg

Well-Known Member
crackerboy said:
No i simply pointed out that the reason man wants to create may be because we are obsessed with trying to be like the creator. The urge to create comes from in my opinion the urge to become like God. It was a simple observation that I posted on roll it up. I was not submitting a new theory to a panel of scientists. Like I said you take yourself way to seriously. Really man it does not always have to turn into something so complicated. I understand thats how you feel better about yourself. Trying to show how smart you are I mean. And its not that I don't understand what you are trying to say. I understand just fine. I'm just annoyed that you continually over analyze everything everyone posts. Yes I am allowed to have a different opinion than yours without having to break down every phrase and word I type.
Click to expand...

When we are talking about rules of evidence, opinion is irrelevant. You must go where the evidence takes you. Humans are prone to mistakes of perception, logic and memory, and the rules of evidence (scientific method) are designed to help us find the truth while avoiding those mistakes.

Your claim, that humans want to create which suggests a creator, is indeed a non-sequitor. It implies a logical connection where there is none. While I don't agree with insulting you, I do agree that the statement has nothing to do with the question of god.

The truth is, god's existence will never be a question of science, since the scientific method demands a claim be falsifiable. This means the subject of god is not testable, so it has no place in science. In other words, if we wanted to find evidence of a god, we would have to ask ourselves "How would we expect the world to look if god created it?". The answer of course is, the world would look any way god wanted it to. In short, when we go looking for evidence of god, EVERYTHING becomes evidence of god. This means the claim will be true no matter how it's tested, which is not science.

Science is flexible. Science is constantly changing it's mind in the face of new evidence. Religion NEVER changes it's mind or opinion no matter what the evidence is.

In keeping with the idea of Mr Dawkins,

We are all atheists about most of the gods mankind has ever created. Some of us just take it one god further. Once you understand the reasons you dismiss all other possible gods in the world, you may understand why I dismiss yours.
 
mindphuk

mindphuk

Well-Known Member
crackerboy said:
I was not making an argument. I was commenting on the irony of the subject. There was nothing definitive about that statement. I was not even commenting to you. So for you to jump in and insist that I do this or that I'm not doing that is just ridiculous. Why is it so hard for you to accept that people can have other views than you? You at no point where trying to have a dialog with me. You where just being the normal arrogant dick that you normally are. You have not debunked anything. The only thing you have accomplished is to show every body how much of an ass you are. Congratulations you have been awarded the thread Nazi award. Ohh yeah I will continue to post my "stupid theistic attacks" any time I please and will do so just to annoy you for now on. Just so you know I work with this same technology that you worship everyday. I don't have a problem with technology. I have a problem with overzealous closed minded bullies like yourself and Pad. You two troll these threads and insult everyone that has a different point of view than you. I get more + REPS from arguing with you two than anything else. So what does that tell you. It tells me that people are glad to see someone else opinion thats not constantly full of negativity and arrogance. Its hilarious how upset you get when people don't bow down to your all knowing attitudes. If your so stuck on the rules of debate than why are you trying to debate with stoners. Why won't you go debate some real scientists? Is it because its easier to maintain that ego when people are to stoned to bother arguing with you.
Click to expand...
Nothing definitive? Are you actually a moron or just too fucking proud to admit when you are wrong?
"Humans are and always have been trying to become God. This is why we create things such and androids."
Sounds quite definitive. An opinion is phrased like "I think..." or "it appears to me..." or even "it is my opinion..."
You also are making a claim here, that we create this technology to "become God." This is an extremely arrogant statement claiming to know the minds and hearts of other people. Ironic that you call me arrogant.
I know I have never aspired to become god, so your statement is false for at least one human.

We are just mimicking God. We where created in his image. So we also try to create as He did.
More definitive bullshit claims about other people's motives.

You don't even know what closed minded means, it doesn't mean that you accept any bullshit assertion without question. That's called credulity and you are full of it. I'm not upset, I'm aggravated by your constant inability to grasp simple concepts when they are clearly explained. But I guess that says more about you than it does about me.

Keep up with the personal attacks and ad hominems. I will continue to respond when you make such stupid contentions, especially when you attempt to shroud a subtle dig at those of us that respect logic, science and reason. Most people that I know that are believers will own up and admit that anything they believe is all on faith, and is something that no one can have absolute knowledge about. When donkeys like yourself make emphatic statements about these things, you deserve every criticism leveled at you.

Now you claim that my posting in this very public forum, on a thread that I was subscribed to before you showed up, is ridiculous. Keep on saying shit like this because your stupidity is entertaining. You seem so angry about my insistence you acknowledge errors in logic. Not once have you attempted to fix these errors but you appear brilliant at your ability to sidestep the issue and deflect. It has nothing to do with 'rules' of debate but of pointing out where your arguments are unsound or invalid. Turning it around and trying to blame me for your ignorance and inability to understand these basic concepts is vacant and and obvious dodge, apparent to everyone with an ounce of critical thinking skills, whether they are a stoner or not. Do you doubt that there are other scientists here on this board? It seems that you don't think potheads are able to follow logic, a stereotype that I'm sure offends a quite a few people here. I too get repped for dealing with your sophistry but unlike you I don't fucking care what other people think because that's not why I post here. I don't know if it's even worth it to point out that is a false dichotomy implying that because I debate your dumb ass that I also don't have more substantial debates with scientists. Probably not since it appears your brain is immune to dialectic.

Yes, you are welcome to post your stupid theistic attacks but I will readily respond to them in spite of your insistence that for some reason I shouldn't. Calling me a nazi won't deter me as you might hope in order to shield yourself from more criticism.

BTW, by invoking Godwin's Law, YOU LOSE! :lol:
 
Heisenberg

Heisenberg

Well-Known Member
Godwin’s Law or the reductio ad Hitlerum. This refers to an attempt at poisoning the well by drawing an analogy between another’s position and Hitler or the Nazis.
Click to expand...
One of my favorite


*Edit, I see you already pointed it out.
 
E

ecofrog

Member
420HAZE420 said:
Hey all you ignorant atheist out there, Ive tried getting an answer to my question on your athiest thread but all of you just answer with some nonsense that has nothing to prove or do with the situation.Anyway my question is if god is not the creator of the heavens and the earth & you dont believe scientist big bang, ice asteroid theory then how in the hell did everything come about?Do you seriously think that the universe just accidently created everything & everyone for no reason? You cant just ignore reality your whole life & if you can I feel terribly sorry that your children must be raised upon lies. and Please id love to hear your bullshit explanations
Click to expand...
Im an atheist and I think its pretty rude to call me ignorant without even knowing me. Shows how one sided you already are... but i will answer your question anyhow.

Just because we dont have proof of one theory or another, doesnt mean that God musta done it, right? They didnt know why it rained, thought Zeus did it. They didnt know the world was round, what the stars were, what bacteria was, computers, aeroplanes, books, fire.... the list is long of the stuff we dont know. Infact, everyone should start a sentence with 'At our current level of ignorance, we are pretty sure of ...' Which means that while nothing can be absolutely proven nor can it be 100% refuted, the best way to answer questions is to look at the evidence and build upon that evidence.

So to the question of 'how the hell did everything come about?', you can start to answer that question by offering hypothesis and then building empirical evidence for different hypothesis.

God sneezed and the Earth and heavens are formed. Well... other than hearsay evidence, im sure it would be hard to find some empirical evidence. Using even the most crude rules of hearsay evidence in court, without some sort of empirical evidence, hearsay is not admissible in court unless its first hand. Mostly, people will utilize this position thruout the ages as a fall back position.

Flying Spaghetti Monster sneezed and the Earth and heavens are formed. Well... again, other than some hearsay, its hard to make this case based on empirical evidence. I think this is the best argument for to not utilize the fallback position because they are all as likely because of the lack of evidence.

Big bang. There is alot of science behind the big bang. While I dont doubt that something happened as has been roughly explained by current science, ther are so many mysteries about it that its hard to draw a straight line. But because there are many predictions that seem to come true many many years after the concept, its clear that there is 'empirical evidence' for a rationed person to allow for this possibility to be a strong candidate for 'where it all began'.

Frozen asteroid brought life. Personally, I think this is a strong contender on how life is seeded around the universe. There is plenty of evidence that the rough building blocks and 'food' such as amino acids and carbon compounds are found throughout the universe. Yet we dont have a mechanism for how soup turns into life so while we have the pieces and parts, we have 2 valid theories... spontaneity or seeding. Seeding seems more plausible to me given how spores and single celled life acts. Also, we are finding organisms is a huge number of places on the earth, bottom of oil wells and floating in our Atmosphere.

Ofcourse there are so many other hypothesis. The point wasnt to show them all but to show the process of how to answer big questions. Fallback positions are weak, hearsay arguments are weak, hypothesis with empirical evidence that predicts actions is strong. Open your mind and ask the question. But then try to answer that question in a reasoned fashion.
 
N

noobdestroyer

New Member
creating a living cell is probably like building a car. you had electricity and some basic elements, which formed amino acids, like the experiment where they showed it could happen. they wonder why all the cell contents in the solution doesnt just make life... well if you had all these car parts just because you pile it in a garage dont make a car. its probably easy enough to make life as they think with the electricity and elements they just havent strung it together right they just piled parts in a solution. it was a good first step that experiment with electricity on elements to get aminos, they just need to go farther to actually make a working thing
 
X

xKuroiTaimax

Well-Known Member
It's aggressive people like this that make me embarrassed to be Christian sometimes -_-;

Anyway, the whole point of an omnipotent Creator is that such a being would be the only one capable of Creating more and being singular in the void before the dawn of the universe...

I agree it is naive to think we understand how the world work or was forned because of science. But it's also naive to believe we understand everything about God too. I don't think God would approve of battering people because they do not believe the same things you do, too.
 
mindphuk

mindphuk

Well-Known Member
xKuroiTaimax said:
I agree it is naive to think we understand how the world work or was forned because of science.
Click to expand...
Can you expand on this? Do you think the knowledge that we have gained is illusory? What do you think about accomplishments like landing a probe on a comet speeding around the sun and picking up material that was around when our earth was formed? Does not the fact that these things work and we can accomplish these things help support the idea that we actually do understand how the world was formed? Why do people seem to discount the idea the fact that technology derived from science works, therefore the science itself is sound and based on some real truth?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top