Atheism is incompatible with science

[Mr Walker]

9 hours ago, danydandan said:

So why are you preaching to the choir about it/him/her?

Using @Habitats logic, you should not be discussing stuff your absolutely certain about?

So; no point in discussing why the earth is truly an oblate spheroid,  and not flat ?   

[Piney]

1 hour ago, pallidin said:

I've often wondered if I could "force" a paranormal event. Still considering both how to do that and the potential dangers.

You can. We call it a Yuwipi Ceremony. Chaos Magicians do it too.  You'll probably regret it though.  

[danydandan]

4 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

So; no point in discussing why the earth is truly an oblate spheroid,  and not flat ?   

Obviously...... we are using Habitats logic here!

Think my point is well made at this point don't you?

 

[Mr Walker]

9 minutes ago, danydandan said:

Obviously...... we are using Habitats logic here!

Think my point is well made at this point don't you?

 

It is interesting. 

I argue my points a lot, for several reasons

The y are true.

I think the y are important to know  (even if another does not believe them, the narratives are out here now. for consideration)

I think that while there are many ways to have a great life, this is one which requires no drugs alcohol or harm,  and thus is objectively better than many ways of living

 

I understand what habitat is saying and in part it is true but the push back i get from  people varies, and is driven by a variety of different mind sets  

Some argue to reinforce and defend their views and beliefs (Habitat might be right that some of these  are not entirely committed or there would be no need to argue )

However they might argue for the same reason i do ie  Because  they are TOTALLY committed to a; view, belief, or understanding, and want to defend it 

it is not really about what each of us values or believes but about how we perceive the way another person looks at our beliefs values etc 

So, to take my point about the earth's shape 

It would never enter into my discussions (or thoughts)  unless, or until, I was engaged in debate  by a "flat earther", ( because i am totally certain  about its shape) Eg we dont argue that water is wet. 

  But, once engaged in debate ,  THEN i would argue for a spheroid earth, vociferously, and probably until the opponent gave up and walked away  

 

[danydandan]

15 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

It is interesting. 

I argue my points a lot, for several reasons

The y are true.

I think the y are important to know  (even if another does not believe them, the narratives are out here now. for consideration)

I think that while there are many ways to have a great life, this is one which requires no drugs alcohol or harm,  and thus is objectively better than many ways of living

 

I understand what habitat is saying and in part it is true but the push back i get from  people varies, and is driven by a variety of different mind sets  

Some argue to reinforce and defend their views and beliefs (Habitat might be right that some of these  are not entirely committed or there would be no need to argue )

However they might argue for the same reason i do ie  Because  they are TOTALLY committed to a; view, belief, or understanding, and want to defend it 

it is not really about what each of us values or believes but about how we perceive the way another person looks at our beliefs values etc 

So, to take my point about the earth's shape 

It would never enter into my discussions (or thoughts)  unless, or until, I was engaged in debate  by a "flat earther", ( because i am totally certain  about its shape) Eg we dont argue that water is wet. 

  But, once engaged in debate ,  THEN i would argue for a spheroid earth, vociferously, and probably until the opponent gave up and walked away  

 

This was never about you, I used your name to make a point. 

For ages Habitat has belittled and berated Atheists and anyone who is certain an afterlife and or ghosts don't exist for engaging in discussion about these topics. Seems odd no? His line of reasoning "folk who are certain of their opinion and or belief's don't engage in discussion on said topic".

However I haven't seen him engage in any of the same tact with the likes of you or Will, as you are certain that a God/s exist. 

He seems to only engage in discussion (trolling more oft than not) with some imagined team.

Do you not see the hypocrisy here?

What exactly is the difference between someone who is certain of God's existence and someone who is not? Why would he not berate you for your certainty like he does others. Just wanted to point that out.

Edited March 30, 2019 by danydandan

[Habitat]

What have I done this time ? Of course Will has his doubts about the "God question". What Mr Walker is talking about does not agree with any God that most people would regard as God, so far as I can see.

[Mr Walker]

1 hour ago, danydandan said:

This was never about you, I used your name to make a point. 

For ages Habitat has belittled and berated Atheists and anyone who is certain an afterlife and or ghosts don't exist for engaging in discussion about these topics. Seems odd no? His line of reasoning "folk who are certain of their opinion and or belief's don't engage in discussion on said topic".

However I haven't seen him engage in any of the same tact with the likes of you or Will, as you are certain that a God/s exist. 

He seems to only engage in discussion (trolling more oft than not) with some imagined team.

Do you not see the hypocrisy here?

What exactly is the difference between someone who is certain of God's existence and someone who is not? Why would he not berate you for your certainty like he does others. Just wanted to point that out.

No i don't see hypocrisy 

I DO see a strong unified  "team" of sceptics who try hard  to belittle and "drive out" any believers.

I don't see you as one of those and i probably see far fewer of them here than habitat perceives.  Some people are genuine sceptics and ask serious questions to try and find answers 

It is only a scratch team, rather than an organised one, but it acts as a source of support and validation for its members.

I think Hab sees things from a stronger, and maybe angrier, perspective than my own  

I am never sure of his own beliefs and opinions, and they often differ from mine, but some i hold in common 

Maybe he sees Will and I as at least neutral, rather than enemies, in these debates   

I find him personally pleasant, supportive, and interesting,  but then he treats me differently to how he treats  those who really annoy him  eg  he speaks with me, with tolerance and even respect.   

If Hab ( Like me)  KNOWS that such a 'god" exists, then of course he  will see those who are certain that gods do not exist as not just certain, but completely wrong in that certainty On the other hand,  I may also  be certain, but in Hab's experience that certainty is correct

This is not hypocritical. It is a consistency of logic driven  by a personal knowledge or perspective

I understand why some people are driven by a certainty of belief that gods do not exist  They are wrong, but it is that being wrong not their certainty which is  their main error

I can't speak for Will, but I am certain because i KNOW.

  One can NEVER be absolutely  certain, if one's opinion is based on belief  

There are some posters here who make a claim of knowledge that  gods do not exist  IE "I KNOW that gods do not exist"  Some go further and claim that nothing of a "supernatural ' nature exists, either. 

They are not only wrong, but it is impossible to justify such a claim without their  own  personal  evidences for it, and the y do NOT have any personal  evidences that no gods exist , because no such evidences exist .  

On that issue, Habitat is totally and completely  correct,  and i understand why it annoys him so much when others refuse to see this.

You (generic)  CANNOT claim to know gods do not exist when  you have no personal evidences for such  non existence.

You CAN, however, legitimately claim that gods do exist,  based on nothing but personal  knowledge, and experience with such a being

Proving such a claim, is another matter altogether.   

Edited March 30, 2019 by Mr Walker

[danydandan]

8 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

No i don't see hypocrisy 

I DO see a strong unified  "team" of sceptics who try hard  to belittle and derive out any believers.

I don't see you s one of those and i probably see far fewer of them here than habitat perceives.  Some people are genuine sceptics and ask serious questions to try and find answers 

its only a scratch team rather than an organised one but it acts as a source of support for its members.

I think Hab sees things from a stronger, and maybe angrier, perspective than my own  

I am never sure of his own beliefs and opinions, and the y often differ from mine, but some i hold in common 

Maybe he sees Will and I as at least neutral rather than enemies in these debates   

I find him personally pleasant, supportive, and interesting,  but then he treats me difernt to how he treats  those who really annoy him  eg  he speaks with me, with tolerance and even respect.   

If Hab ( Like me)  KNOWS that such a 'god" exist then of course he  will see those who are certain tha t gods do not exist as not just certain but completely wrong in tha t certainty On the other hand i may also  be certain but in Hab's experience that certainty is correct

This is not hypocritical it is a consistency of logic driven  by a personal knowledge or perspective

I understand why some peole are driven by a certainty of belief tha t gods do not exist  They are wrong but it is that being wrong not their certinty which is  their main error

I can't speak for Will but I am certain because i KNOW.

  One can NEVER be absolutely  certain, if ones opinion is based on belief  

There are some posters here who make a claim of knowldge that  gods do not exist  IE "I KNOW that gods do not exist"  Some go further and claim that nothing of a "supernatural ' nature exists, either. 

The y are not only wrong, but it is impossible to justify such a claim without their  own  personal  evidences for it, and the y do NOT have any personal  evidences that no gods exist , because no such evidences exist .  

On that issue, Habitat is totally and completely  correct  and i understand why it annoys him so much when others refuse to see this.

You (generic)  CANNOT claim to know gods do not exist when  you have no personal evidences for such  non existence.

You CAN, however, legitimately claim that gods do exist,  based on nothing but personal  knowledge, and experience with such a being

Proving such a claim, is another matter altogether.   

Of course you don't see the hypocritical approach, didn't really expect you to either.

Scroll back to his response when I asked does s/he hold those of Faith, with certainty of their beliefs in the same vein as these apparent enemies....I mean Atheists.

Long story short he says he does, but I've never seen him/her engaged in a discussion or troll any Theists for their certainty. Have you? 

That's hypocritical, berating one for their certainty and not the other. Seems like an innate bias he/she has.

[Rlyeh]

9 hours ago, pallidin said:

It is important to recognize the paranormal.

It exists in reality due to qauntum fluctuations, and must be approached with maturity.

Why, because you're ignorant of it?  That doesn't mean it exists.

Maybe you should try to understand things before making asinine claims?  That goes to all your comments here.

Edited March 30, 2019 by Rlyeh

[Rlyeh]

8 hours ago, pallidin said:

The atheist is like this:

It's all about me, and I will kill you if you get in my way.

Extreme narcissism.

Atheists are going around killing people?  That is incredibly stupid even coming from you.

 

I suppose pallidin is like this;

I lack the mental capacity to understand anything, therefore god.

[Stubbly_Dooright]

16 hours ago, Will Due said:

 

When a person decides to believe something, sometimes, God is involved. Regardless if there's belief IN him.

 

 

Funny, how I don’t see any hint of him in all of that. 

So, how is it, one knows that for sure................ you know proof, evidence, and all that. 

[danydandan]

3 hours ago, Rlyeh said:

Atheists are going around killing people?  That is incredibly stupid even coming from you.

 

I suppose pallidin is like this;

I lack the mental capacity to understand anything, therefore god.

Well their name is Palidin. With an extra L for some odd reason.

[onlookerofmayhem]

12 hours ago, pallidin said:

Interesting, so, you present as an agnostic.

I respect your position even though I do not agree. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism

I more relate to the label of an agnostic atheist if that helps.

[Horta]

5 hours ago, Habitat said:

Of course Will has his doubts about the "God question". 

Yeah, that's obvious...

[Piney]

4 hours ago, Rlyeh said:

Atheists are going around killing people?  That is incredibly stupid even coming from you.

 

Today is the anniversary a Atheist was killed for his beliefs.

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

[danydandan]

26 minutes ago, Piney said:

Today is the anniversary a Atheist was killed for his beliefs.

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

Them Chinese atheists are killing... I mean reprogramming Muslims left, right and centre in their re-edumacation camps.

[Piney]

4 minutes ago, danydandan said:

Them Chinese atheists are killing... I mean reprogramming Muslims left, right and centre in their re-edumacation camps.

They are not Atheists. They are Taoists and Buddhists and if Erdogan didn't spread the Turkofile dreck that all Turanians need to become Muslim incitings the Turan who are Muslim and if Saudi Arabia didn't send a group of **** starters to rile things up it would of never happened.

We Asians are now going to show you Westerners how to quickly and effectively win a "war on terror".   

[danydandan]

3 minutes ago, Piney said:

They are not Atheists. They are Taoists and Buddhists and if Erdogan didn't spread the Turkofile dreck that all Turanians need to become Muslim incitings the Turan who are Muslim and if Saudi Arabia didn't send a group of **** starters to rile things up it would of never happened.

We Asians are now going to show you Westerners how to quickly and effectively win a "war on terror".   

Us Irish have been the terror, some say we still are? 

In fairness though, I thought the communist party in China were irreligious and Atheist.

[Piney]

2 minutes ago, danydandan said:

In fairness though, I thought the communist party in China were irreligious and Atheist.

That's what Mao pushed. But his ideas have been proven against "Heavenly Mandate". Most are Taoist.

This is why I only read and watch Asian news. Your Western one, no matter which side it leans, is mostly misinformation.  

[Piney]

16 minutes ago, danydandan said:

Us Irish have been the terror, some say we still are? 

 

Both sides had "Green" and "Orange" "terrorists". Violence never solved anything. 

[danydandan]

4 minutes ago, Piney said:

Both sides had "Green" and "Orange" "terrorists". Violence never solved anything. 

Got the Brits out, then of course it kept them in up North.

 

19 minutes ago, Piney said:

That's what Mao pushed. But his ideas have been proven against "Heavenly Mandate". Most are Taoist.

This is why I only read and watch Asian news. Your Western one, no matter which side it leans, is mostly misinformation.  

Yeah the news is a load of crap. 

[Will Due]

2 minutes ago, danydandan said:

Yeah the news is a load of crap. 

 

It's much worse than that.

 

 

[+Sherapy]

7 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

No i don't see hypocrisy 

I DO see a strong unified  "team" of sceptics who try hard  to belittle and "drive out" any believers.

I don't see you as one of those and i probably see far fewer of them here than habitat perceives.  Some people are genuine sceptics and ask serious questions to try and find answers 

It is only a scratch team, rather than an organised one, but it acts as a source of support and validation for its members.

I think Hab sees things from a stronger, and maybe angrier, perspective than my own  

I am never sure of his own beliefs and opinions, and they often differ from mine, but some i hold in common 

Maybe he sees Will and I as at least neutral, rather than enemies, in these debates   

I find him personally pleasant, supportive, and interesting,  but then he treats me differently to how he treats  those who really annoy him  eg  he speaks with me, with tolerance and even respect.   

If Hab ( Like me)  KNOWS that such a 'god" exists, then of course he  will see those who are certain that gods do not exist as not just certain, but completely wrong in that certainty On the other hand,  I may also  be certain, but in Hab's experience that certainty is correct

This is not hypocritical. It is a consistency of logic driven  by a personal knowledge or perspective

I understand why some people are driven by a certainty of belief that gods do not exist  They are wrong, but it is that being wrong not their certainty which is  their main error

I can't speak for Will, but I am certain because i KNOW.

  One can NEVER be absolutely  certain, if one's opinion is based on belief  

There are some posters here who make a claim of knowledge that  gods do not exist  IE "I KNOW that gods do not exist"  Some go further and claim that nothing of a "supernatural ' nature exists, either. 

They are not only wrong, but it is impossible to justify such a claim without their  own  personal  evidences for it, and the y do NOT have any personal  evidences that no gods exist , because no such evidences exist .  

On that issue, Habitat is totally and completely  correct,  and i understand why it annoys him so much when others refuse to see this.

You (generic)  CANNOT claim to know gods do not exist when  you have no personal evidences for such  non existence.

You CAN, however, legitimately claim that gods do exist,  based on nothing but personal  knowledge, and experience with such a being

Proving such a claim, is another matter altogether.   

You have imagined a position that the so called team holds. 

Not a single poster has taken the position that god doesn’t exist.

You are projecting, it is you who positis that god exists based on personal ancedotal evidence.

In reality, one can’t prove or disprove god. 

You can put forth arguments that are supported by facts about why you lean towards one conclusion more than other.

Which to date you have never done.

Instead, You prostelize a holier than thou lifestyle you make claims that living the way you do is superior, the gold standard, buying your underwear from goodwill, having very little money and major health issues, living in very small town that you have never left, reading about life through books for entertainment. Hey, if this is your happiness good for you, but don’t be offended that the rest of us would not under any circumstances strive for such an existence. 

For example: You are berating J., for loving his life, living his, life, enjoying his life, having great health, liking his wine, enjoying lots of women, having adventure, and a granddaughter who he adores that brings him a lot of joy, work he thrives in. Sheesh.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 30, 2019 by Sherapy

[jmccr8]

14 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

The alien is not "god" but it is the only real ( ie physical) god, that humans know.  IMO

We have historically perceived it as a god, due to its superior knowledge and technology, and thus power, and its ongoing interaction with humans over millennia. 

Hi Walker

You refer to your alien as god consistently and when questioned turn it around to all humans other than you would see it as a god even when told that an alien is just that. And no Will god is not an alien.

jmccr8

[onlookerofmayhem]

22 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

In reality, one can’t prove or disprove god.

Exactly. Those that claim God exists simply assert it. Even going as far as saying it's an unfalsifiable position. I've yet to get the explanation on how one would go about proving anything proposed isn't real.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

"Russell specifically applied his analogy in the context of religion.^[1] He wrote that if he were to assert, without offering proof, that a teapot, too small to be seen by telescopes, orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, he could not expect anyone to believe him solely because his assertion could not be proven wrong."

7 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

You CAN, however, legitimately claim that gods do exist,  based on nothing but personal  knowledge, and experience with such a being

Proving such a claim, is another matter altogether.   

Yes @Mr Walker, you can claim anything you'd like. You admit proving it is difficult though.

It's in the same vein as Bigfoot, faeries and leprechauns. Believers get to claim they are real, but others can't claim it's not because believers know *insert favorite phenomena* is real?

I'm positive you're aware of the concept of burden of proof, yet you seem fine with simply asserting things and telling people they're WRONG for not accepting.

Do you expect people to believe anecdotal stories about these things?

I'm sure you consider it logical for atheists to hold the position they do due to lack of evidence.

You've claimed you could prove to someone that your "god" is real if they come visit you. Wouldn't it behoove you to search out a way to do this? Can your god help the human race as a whole? Cure diseases? Help out with cold fusion? Stop injustices? 

If not, what's the point in calling it a god and not just an alien buddy of yours?

51 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

Not a single poster has taken the position that god doesn’t exist.

A strawman, that most recently @Habitat , tried to adopt against me. Along with trying to define atheism as something other than the position of not believing in a god.

It seems it's imperative for him that an atheist must insert doubt into their viewpoint.

Something along the lines of,

"I don't believe in god, but it's absolutely possible it exists."

A caveat that really isn't necessary in my opinion.

One would have to add it to pretty much any similar position.

Ex. "I don't believe in Bigfoot, BUT it's definitely possibly it exists."

Kind of lame in my opinion.