>a ratchet wheel is an eternal universal uncreated thing >acting smug over being so vague you can't backup your image with decent details and arguments anyway
I honestly never understood why atheists were so virulent in their proselytizing. It's the default worldview taught (though not adopted, arguably). But beyond that, any religious exemption easily explains how atheism could simply be wrong; the fact that the religious explanation could also be wrong has no bearing on it. An atheist saying "we have evidence that the universe has been around for an extremely long time, much longer than your religion states" would simply be met with funny looks as one replies "But you've changed your opinion already and there are many ways for you to be wrong still. And our religion isn't necessarily incompatible with that, anyway," and the argument becomes moot. It's not even a claim that one side is more intelligent or correct than the other, it just seems insanely futile. I'm a Christian and our belief system has fairly vague dating systems (as I'm sure most of you are aware) AND atheist/agnostic scientific rigor is questioned constantly... it seems to me that any argument about one's sincerity and thorough accuracy is not only easily shot down through mild scrutiny but also equally as readily supported through incidental data.
>You must prove the unprovable. >But MY unprovable proof backed by a power structure is fine. >No, the fact that your unprovable proofs are also backed by a power structure doesn't make it more viable. It makes it less, even. >No, the fact that we can both dismiss certain proofs based on entirely reasonable bases, such as irreplicability, have nothing to do with this.
Atheism isn't "there is no god", it's "I don't believe there is a god"
Theism isn't "there is a god", it's "I believe there is a god".
What you describe is agnosticism, and anyone who isn't an agnostic is mentally ill
You mix up atheism and science. They go hand in hand, but science is constantly questioning itself, knowing that any knowledge, any measurement of the real world is inaccurate to some degree, so the conclusions we draw from the data we have today don't necessarily match the conclusions from the data we have tomorrow. Religious claims on the other hand are either untestable, or falsified or in the process of being falsified. The fact that a single religious claim is falsified already is enough to show that specific religion isn't accurate, considering it claims truth. Instead, religious claims being made up is more consistent with reality.
This is exactly what I'm talking about. >That's not atheism
Ok, sure, whatever. Atheists believe nothing in particular. So sciencists believe blah blah and there's a giant overlap. Ok. >Science is constantly changing
yes >Religious claims are either untestable, or falsified, or in the process of being falsified
A bit more granularity would be helpful here: >Religious claims are either true but untestable, false but untestable, falsified accurately, falsified inaccurately, in the process of being falsified accurately, or in the process of being falsified inaccurately.
All of which are possible in our current world where scientific integrity is dubious, arguably inherently so. Every single holder of power in the world, whether religiously dogmatic or atheistically dogmatic, or purely benevolent or purely malevolent, or any combination or grade of the above, has stakes at what is considered "truth" and to argue purity of thought or reason specifically by committee of trusted individuals is simply outsourcing faith, logic, or both, again in some combination or grade.
What happens if we find even a suggestion that, say, the laws of physics are not consistent across the universe? How would we know? The outputs of its effects would be identical in our segment of space. How do we explain even commonly known phenomena, like quantum observation? It's easily argued as cliche or a copout to say "but what if? Nothing is for certain, after all!" but that is the absolute foundation of the scientific principle. Science NEVER claims answers, it claims evidence. And our current evidence is held by people who actively want one thing or another, just like they always have. You and I, and everyone in this thread, have nearly boundless access to information via the internet, more than billions of people before us, yet the vast majority of all information has been bunk. Truncated comment for limit. But you get the gist.
I honestly never understood why atheists were so virulent in their proselytizing. It's the default worldview taught (though not adopted, arguably). But beyond that, any religious exemption easily explains how atheism could simply be wrong; the fact that the religious explanation could also be wrong has no bearing on it. An atheist saying "we have evidence that the universe has been around for an extremely long time, much longer than your religion states" would simply be met with funny looks as one replies "But you've changed your opinion already and there are many ways for you to be wrong still. And our religion isn't necessarily incompatible with that, anyway," and the argument becomes moot. It's not even a claim that one side is more intelligent or correct than the other, it just seems insanely futile. I'm a Christian and our belief system has fairly vague dating systems (as I'm sure most of you are aware) AND atheist/agnostic scientific rigor is questioned constantly... it seems to me that any argument about one's sincerity and thorough accuracy is not only easily shot down through mild scrutiny but also equally as readily supported through incidental data.
# >I honestly never understood why atheists were so virulent in their proselytizing.
You do understand it, apparently. Humans are flawed and humans like to be right, that their truths are actual truths.
Being able to reject your own truth for a new, more accurate one is a merit, not a failure.
# >What happens if we find even a suggestion that, say, the laws of physics are not consistent across the universe?
That would incredibly exciting! Scientists (usually) aren't dogmatic, that what they learned must stay the truth. Finding out that one was wrong is literally the best thing for a scientist to experience. It may sting a little, but it's not the conclusions that are important, it's the continuous path towards truth.
Religious belief is more rigid, though since it (as I suggest) is made up, by humans, written in texts to be interpreted by humans, obviously these beliefs can change too and adhere more to discoveries. >Every single holder of power in the world, [...] has stakes at what is considered "truth"
Very true. And (at least part of) the solution is right in your sentence. There are multiple competing claims for the truth. That is a good thing, because it allows us to scrutinise one against the other and create tests for which claims cannot be true. >Science NEVER claims answers.
Not quite true.
If I hypothesise that frogs are never blue, science can very easily claim an answer by showing a blue frog.
Science doesn't say "this is true", science says "this cannot be true" and also "this may be true because it is consistent with all the evidence".
Whoever claims absolute truth - be they religious or otherwise - isn't sane.
5 months ago
Anonymous
I think that for all that we've agreed and disagreed upon we're dancing around the fundamental fact that everyone participating and viewing this argument is going to ignore it. This is what I mean. I posted saying "I find it silly that we're completely capable of rationally defending a religious view of the universe, and that it would be meaningless to argue" and then we argued. This isn't even meant to be a "gotcha", that would be stupid, it's just that as nihilistic as it sounds, both of us know we're going to think ourselves right after this argument and then go back and be comfortable in our own spheres of thought afterwards - yes, including that "scientists are not necessarily prone to dogmatism" (which is wrong, but I can neither prove it due to the unprovability of a statement about such a wide pool of people nor due to being unable to cite such a fantasied study by my narrow view, but we both know it to be true if we consider the average "scientist"). It sounds like a copout but I believe the human psyche is prone to copouts inherently. I'm sure you would agree. I'm sure you'll read this and simultaneously think that I'm making enough sense but that I'm also wrong, and that I'm also arguing from a place of uncertainty - but that's the point. I supposed I should really be saying, "What are some philosophical structures that discuss or promote the view that not only is all human perspective twisted and biased - as is obvious - but also that there IS a fundamental truth, or many fundamental truths, and that we will never know it (unless there is some form of apotheosis)" And even that sounds absurd and derived and useless.
Paring it even further back - pure honesty here - neither of us are going to be satisfied in this discussion. Do you want to just cut it short, at the risk of making my stance weaker? I don't personally feel like such a debate is worth continuing (despite my ramblings, which you are free to dissect but that I may not reciprocate.)
5 months ago
Anonymous
I quite liked the exchange, and I'd like to be shown that I'm wrong.
But if you want to end it here that's fine with me. If you consider the discussion futile, because you won't change your views anyway (not that this is my goal), then I understand that there is no benefit for you.
About the dogma of scientists, maybe our definition of a scientist differs so that could introduce misunderstandings. To me, a scientist adheres to the scientific method and tries to avoid preconceptions wherever possible, though I agree that social pressure is a big disturbance to that. Nevertheless, competing theories exist
5 months ago
Anonymous
I appreciated talking to you nonetheless, thank you 🙂
>atheistgay acts even more insufferable when asked for basic layman explanation, pushing others away but ern it's ok because atheism means there's no divine reason to have a heart
No wonder everyone hates you
guys am I moronic or is all the text in the pic utterly incomprehensible? Anyone care to give a better rewording of whatever dyslexic-written thing's there?
>progress without a beginning is impossible
Thats like saying infinity cant increase because it never was at 0. Their argument belongs in the 1700s when this was hotly debated but has no place in the modern world
>Progress without a beginning is impossible
WRONG b***h
>a ratchet wheel is an eternal universal uncreated thing
>acting smug over being so vague you can't backup your image with decent details and arguments anyway
>It's a circular loop.
What started the circle? Cause the loop is still a progress.
What started god? Because he's claimed to be an existence. How can something exist that had no beginning?
Atheists are moronic.
Beginnings can be arbitrary. See: the beginning of this material universe.
>t. Non-atheist defeating this silly theist argument.
I honestly never understood why atheists were so virulent in their proselytizing. It's the default worldview taught (though not adopted, arguably). But beyond that, any religious exemption easily explains how atheism could simply be wrong; the fact that the religious explanation could also be wrong has no bearing on it. An atheist saying "we have evidence that the universe has been around for an extremely long time, much longer than your religion states" would simply be met with funny looks as one replies "But you've changed your opinion already and there are many ways for you to be wrong still. And our religion isn't necessarily incompatible with that, anyway," and the argument becomes moot. It's not even a claim that one side is more intelligent or correct than the other, it just seems insanely futile. I'm a Christian and our belief system has fairly vague dating systems (as I'm sure most of you are aware) AND atheist/agnostic scientific rigor is questioned constantly... it seems to me that any argument about one's sincerity and thorough accuracy is not only easily shot down through mild scrutiny but also equally as readily supported through incidental data.
Russell’s Teapot, goodnight
NTA but it's already been debunked as a philosophical failure as making up definitions don't work.
>You must prove the unprovable.
>But MY unprovable proof backed by a power structure is fine.
>No, the fact that your unprovable proofs are also backed by a power structure doesn't make it more viable. It makes it less, even.
>No, the fact that we can both dismiss certain proofs based on entirely reasonable bases, such as irreplicability, have nothing to do with this.
Atheism isn't "there is no god", it's "I don't believe there is a god"
Theism isn't "there is a god", it's "I believe there is a god".
What you describe is agnosticism, and anyone who isn't an agnostic is mentally ill
I used atheism and agnosticism accurately in that post thoughbeit
You mix up atheism and science. They go hand in hand, but science is constantly questioning itself, knowing that any knowledge, any measurement of the real world is inaccurate to some degree, so the conclusions we draw from the data we have today don't necessarily match the conclusions from the data we have tomorrow. Religious claims on the other hand are either untestable, or falsified or in the process of being falsified. The fact that a single religious claim is falsified already is enough to show that specific religion isn't accurate, considering it claims truth. Instead, religious claims being made up is more consistent with reality.
This is exactly what I'm talking about.
>That's not atheism
Ok, sure, whatever. Atheists believe nothing in particular. So sciencists believe blah blah and there's a giant overlap. Ok.
>Science is constantly changing
yes
>Religious claims are either untestable, or falsified, or in the process of being falsified
A bit more granularity would be helpful here:
>Religious claims are either true but untestable, false but untestable, falsified accurately, falsified inaccurately, in the process of being falsified accurately, or in the process of being falsified inaccurately.
All of which are possible in our current world where scientific integrity is dubious, arguably inherently so. Every single holder of power in the world, whether religiously dogmatic or atheistically dogmatic, or purely benevolent or purely malevolent, or any combination or grade of the above, has stakes at what is considered "truth" and to argue purity of thought or reason specifically by committee of trusted individuals is simply outsourcing faith, logic, or both, again in some combination or grade.
What happens if we find even a suggestion that, say, the laws of physics are not consistent across the universe? How would we know? The outputs of its effects would be identical in our segment of space. How do we explain even commonly known phenomena, like quantum observation? It's easily argued as cliche or a copout to say "but what if? Nothing is for certain, after all!" but that is the absolute foundation of the scientific principle. Science NEVER claims answers, it claims evidence. And our current evidence is held by people who actively want one thing or another, just like they always have. You and I, and everyone in this thread, have nearly boundless access to information via the internet, more than billions of people before us, yet the vast majority of all information has been bunk. Truncated comment for limit. But you get the gist.
#
So you've answered your own question?
#
>I honestly never understood why atheists were so virulent in their proselytizing.
You do understand it, apparently. Humans are flawed and humans like to be right, that their truths are actual truths.
Being able to reject your own truth for a new, more accurate one is a merit, not a failure.
#
>What happens if we find even a suggestion that, say, the laws of physics are not consistent across the universe?
That would incredibly exciting! Scientists (usually) aren't dogmatic, that what they learned must stay the truth. Finding out that one was wrong is literally the best thing for a scientist to experience. It may sting a little, but it's not the conclusions that are important, it's the continuous path towards truth.
Religious belief is more rigid, though since it (as I suggest) is made up, by humans, written in texts to be interpreted by humans, obviously these beliefs can change too and adhere more to discoveries.
>Every single holder of power in the world, [...] has stakes at what is considered "truth"
Very true. And (at least part of) the solution is right in your sentence. There are multiple competing claims for the truth. That is a good thing, because it allows us to scrutinise one against the other and create tests for which claims cannot be true.
>Science NEVER claims answers.
Not quite true.
If I hypothesise that frogs are never blue, science can very easily claim an answer by showing a blue frog.
Science doesn't say "this is true", science says "this cannot be true" and also "this may be true because it is consistent with all the evidence".
Whoever claims absolute truth - be they religious or otherwise - isn't sane.
I think that for all that we've agreed and disagreed upon we're dancing around the fundamental fact that everyone participating and viewing this argument is going to ignore it. This is what I mean. I posted saying "I find it silly that we're completely capable of rationally defending a religious view of the universe, and that it would be meaningless to argue" and then we argued. This isn't even meant to be a "gotcha", that would be stupid, it's just that as nihilistic as it sounds, both of us know we're going to think ourselves right after this argument and then go back and be comfortable in our own spheres of thought afterwards - yes, including that "scientists are not necessarily prone to dogmatism" (which is wrong, but I can neither prove it due to the unprovability of a statement about such a wide pool of people nor due to being unable to cite such a fantasied study by my narrow view, but we both know it to be true if we consider the average "scientist"). It sounds like a copout but I believe the human psyche is prone to copouts inherently. I'm sure you would agree. I'm sure you'll read this and simultaneously think that I'm making enough sense but that I'm also wrong, and that I'm also arguing from a place of uncertainty - but that's the point. I supposed I should really be saying, "What are some philosophical structures that discuss or promote the view that not only is all human perspective twisted and biased - as is obvious - but also that there IS a fundamental truth, or many fundamental truths, and that we will never know it (unless there is some form of apotheosis)" And even that sounds absurd and derived and useless.
Paring it even further back - pure honesty here - neither of us are going to be satisfied in this discussion. Do you want to just cut it short, at the risk of making my stance weaker? I don't personally feel like such a debate is worth continuing (despite my ramblings, which you are free to dissect but that I may not reciprocate.)
I quite liked the exchange, and I'd like to be shown that I'm wrong.
But if you want to end it here that's fine with me. If you consider the discussion futile, because you won't change your views anyway (not that this is my goal), then I understand that there is no benefit for you.
About the dogma of scientists, maybe our definition of a scientist differs so that could introduce misunderstandings. To me, a scientist adheres to the scientific method and tries to avoid preconceptions wherever possible, though I agree that social pressure is a big disturbance to that. Nevertheless, competing theories exist
I appreciated talking to you nonetheless, thank you 🙂
I read
>atheist
as
>autist
. I noticed my mistake right before I was going to make a post on the topic. Zarry on.
sounds like you read it correctly
Are you trying to call me moronic?
This is the most intelligent exchange in the thread
read a book
the penis skin god of the israeli torah is thus proven true
atheists btfo
can someone explain what is being said here? no part of it makes sense to me.
If you are genuine then it's unironically too high IQ for you, you're hopeless.
>atheistgay acts even more insufferable when asked for basic layman explanation, pushing others away but ern it's ok because atheism means there's no divine reason to have a heart
No wonder everyone hates you
guys am I moronic or is all the text in the pic utterly incomprehensible? Anyone care to give a better rewording of whatever dyslexic-written thing's there?
Oh atheist bros i will seriously laupt your damn nuts off. Vaush does not scare me
In the beginning God created the word.
pic reads like someone drunk with words. very common L amongst idiots who think too much.
is this some kind of competition? i hope i can win it.
Just in time.
It's only through Jesus that you can let it go.
CHARLIE I'M SORRY CHARLIE I DIDN'T MEAN TO KILL YOUR WHOLE FRICKIN FAMILY GODDAMN I'M SO FRICKIN SORRY MAN
>progress without a beginning is impossible
Thats like saying infinity cant increase because it never was at 0. Their argument belongs in the 1700s when this was hotly debated but has no place in the modern world
An it was iji
Accident for thou
Waiting For you...
Closer to the heart
shed our beliefs to atone for the mistakes we made! one and all! thank you brother for this opportunity.
Ive done magic my whole life i am magic and i pay homage to the lord of truth
Though i cannot really pay homage to (him) can i? I am merlin
I am Icky
>a quality of God is that he is eternal
>I can imagine an eternal being, therefore it exists
Nah