Topic: Why do Atheists Hate Religion? - page 437. (Read 901341 times)

Says the guy who thinks an inductive fallacy is about poor electrical semiconductors.

TKO.

(Chuckle.)

C'mon, now. Relax. You are losing the connection between your soul and your brain, and your corpus callosum is turning into hemorrhoids.

 

1) Blah blah blah, hot air and no actual point.  I love how you claim I have "simplistic thinking" when you don't actually provide any reasons for your own statements.

2) No.  *Empiricism* is a belief system.  Science is an empirical *method.*  The scientific method is in no way a belief system.

3)  It *must* remain truthful by acknowledging its limitations at every turn, especially in the conclusion section.  No problem here.  If it didn't, it wouldn't be good scientific practice.

4)  It's called "margin-of-error," and *every* scientific conclusion has one.  No problem, here.  There is no person more humble or cautious about a conclusion than a good scientist, for it is his duty to explicitly describe where scientific experiments have points of weakness.

5) What kind of fucking moron do you have to be to create a belief system in which you think an actual religion isn't one, and a total non-religion is one?  Here we go again.  This type of thinking meets the criteria for psychosis.  I'm not kidding.

Can you possibly frame your beliefs using the words everyone else uses?  No?  Of course not, because you have no clue what you're talking about.

I'm going to create a thread where I do nothing but quote you and show your own quotes directly contradict yourself.  Out of curiosity, how would you plan to wiggle out and explain your own contradictions, such as saying "religion will be shown to be true" and "Christianity isn't even a religion"?  Furthermore, how so you intend to reconcile several dozen of these types of contradictory quotes?

1. The scientific method is perfect with regard to itself. No limitations. But that is all it has. What's the matter. Do you have problems recognizing the truth, so you attempt to do character assassinations of my understandings which are, obviously, way beyond your simplistic thinking?

2. Science is a belief system. The scientific method simply describes the details of science. Thus science, at least the way that it is expressed, is a religion. It is a weak religion, because by the time that it finishes what it is attempting to do, the whole universe will have crumbled to beyond dust, through entropy.

3. I would consider science a much better tool than that, as long as it remains in truthful expression.

4. You might prove things to many people. But if you do, it is only because they are willing to accept what you "evidence" to them as proof.

5. Actually, Christianity is not really religion. It is reality. The way scientific knowledge is exaggerated in the expressions of scientists and politicians, science is one of the biggest religions out there, surpassed only by atheism.

1) The scientific method is perfect, it just has limitations.  Philosophy and logic in general don't have such limitations and accordingly have greater scope.  But you have no desire to learn how or why.  You *could* learn about how and why so you don't keep making dumbass statements which, after hundreds of posts, indicate you still have no idea what the scientific method is, how it works, why it works, and why it works perfectly within the boundaries of its scope.

2) Religion isn't epistemology.  It's a belief system.  It's not even comparable.  Religon is not a method which leads to knowledge acquisition.  Again, its a belief system. Different religions are derived from various epistemological roots (e.g. "Read the Bible because the Bible is true") but it's the epistemology which must be evaluate for its rigor, not the religion itself.

3) The size of the Universe has nothing to do with science's inability to form a comprehensive explanatory model of reality.  Instead, it's limited by the rules of inductive reasoning which do not permit such explanations.

4) Consider yourself contested and defeated.  Care to contest what I said?  And by "contest," I don't mean just disagreeing.  I mean, can you actually provide reasons?

5) Way to equate "religion" with "Chrisianity" and ignore every other religion.  

Religions are not failed sciences, simply for the fact that science and the scientific method are failed sciences. After all, what is the real goal of science? Of course, it is different for every person/scientist (some want to use it to benefit humanity, others to take over the world, all to live at least a reasonable personal life).

Science will never get to the goal it is looking for. Why not? Because the universe is too large for science to achieve any real coherence within its various fields of endeavor. Only religion can do that.

If you are going to contest what I have written here, be my guest. But come back with something serious when science proves that it has allowed people to live for 200 years in good health... better, 500 years... or a thousand years.

Long before science can do this, religion will have proven itself to be true as mankind nears destroying the earth, and Jesus God returns in glory as He has said He would.

QFT in science this concept is known as "burden of proof" and it means he who makes the claim must provide the supporting evidence.
Religions are failed sciences, so naturally they're losing every philosophical and ethical battle to science proper. It's only a matter of time now. Since the birth of the internet religion has become a dead thing walking.



Religion offers a Perfect Answer to end all questions, it's the intellectual equivalent of closing a door. Every question in science leads to still more questions, this is why science survives and thrives while religion wanes toward irrelevance.

None of that sentence matters regarding anything I said.

Of course, none f this matters to anyone in great pain or great joy, except that the pain won't stop or that the joy will.

Ok thank you it's an interesting read.

All identifiable, real things must self-apparently have an abstract basis.

The reason for this is that real things/reality are defined by metrics, which are abstract scales of measurement.

The most fundamental metric is binary.  A binary metric is fundamentally necessary in order for something to exist.  For example "1" vs. "0" or "yes" or "no" is a fundamental metric which allows us to assert something exists, which is distinguishable from non-existence.

Perception is the catalyst which invokes this primary metric, and reality is literally defined and affirmed to exist by it.  Without such a metric, there is nothing by which to differentiate betwee existence and non-existence, real and unreal.

Secondary metrics provide similar functions.  For example, after first distinguishing between space and not-space, we can invoke a secondary metric.  If we select a metric that can be divided infinitesimally, then space is continuous.  If we instead invoke a metric that cannot be divided infinitesimally, then space is discontinuous.  Neat, eh?

In the absence of such metrics, we can't assert reality to exist at all.  Born of these metrics, which differentiate between real objects and define them, are rational statements.  The root word of rationale is "ratio," and every rational statement is one describing a relationship between real objects.  Because logic is a predicate for truth, and because any logical statement is a rational statement, truth only takes the form of such relational statements; there is no truth relevant of consideration outside these rational statements.

So, without metrics, we can't even begin to explore what's true and what isn't.  Metrics differentiate between things, thereby setting a ratio between them and allowing us to form true, rational statements about them.  Because metrics are self-descriptively invoked by an [intelligent] mind, and because all real definition is a product of these metrics, Intelligent Design is the necessary mechanism by which reality is created/defined.

Hello the joint, I know you believe in a "god", and that metaphysical things exist. But can you explain to me why and how?

Devil's advocate:  The 'atheist scientist" fallacy at play is that they believe 1) the scientific method should have the final say, or that 2) only empirical things are real, or that 3) scientific falsification is the only kind that exists, or that 4) the scientific method sets the standard for explanatory rigor.

1)  In this case it shouldn't as it is entirely inapplicable (there is no possible, theoretical way to even conceptualize a means of empirical falsification even if you assume outright God exists).  Actually, it can't even explore the topic of God or Intelligent Design in any meaningful way.

2)  Non-empirical (i.e. non-physical) things exist.  This is self-apparent every moment of your conscious experience.

3)  Logical falsification > empirical falsification.  The scientific method has no built-in mechanism for distinguishing between contradictory observations (e.g. our extrapolation based upon observations of Universal expansion that the Universe is 'x' years-old vs. our observations that galaxies at similar ages of development appear equidistant from our locality in every direction).  Science must defer to logic to distinguish between contradictory conclusions derived from observations.  In such a case, logic can reconcile what Science cannot.

4)  The scientific method is a philosophical subset.  Its roots are entirely abstract and philosophical, and stem from empirical epistemology.  In an empirical context (i.e. where the role of observation is controlled and assumed to have no causal effect on reality whatsoever), the scientific method does set the standard for explanatory rigor.  Outside of an empirical context, its explanatory rigor is exactly zero.  Nil.  Zip.  Nothing.  Nada.  It has absolutely no capacity whatsoever to explore or comment upon abstract phenomena, including its own abstract assumptions, and also the abstract rules of logical inference and theory-making which it utilizes at every experimental turn.

At the height of generality, logic is self-descriptively the most capable of forming sound explanatory models.

I did rebut your points.  You presented a definition held seemingly only by atheists as the one truth and continue to cling to that definition.  I don't not understand the logic, I reject your definition as one which is not the commonly held definition, but rather as one put out by a political group.  I would no sooner simply accept that definition than that of any other groups' that was attempting to forward an agenda.

Sorry to tell you that other definitions exist and run counter to yours.  you can continue to rail on about it, but it's kind of absurd.  It's even more absurd that you seem to think you're playing some game of 'gotcha' with that when it is you that refuses to accept the common definition.

Beyond that you cling to this definition with such fervency as to be laughable in the context of your trying to argue against ego being a large component of people's need to hammer an opposing viewpoint, if that's even what you're doing, as it seems you're just bitching at this point.  . 

It's funny, actually.  "Here's evidence in support of my point and here's where to verify it"  "Well, fuck that, I'm still right and you're still stupid"  This is exactly, EXACTLY what I'm talking about.

BTW, pointing out your boorish behavior, is not a logical fallacy.  You might have a point if I had used those statements regarding your assholery as actual argument, however, I did not.  After I was done making my points, which I did do, counter to your again incorrect assertion that I did not, I simply pointed out that your self righteous posing was bullshit and added nothing to the conversation. That is neither whining nor logical fallacy, it is pointing out that silly shit is silly shit, as well as it being a wonderful display of your clearly raging ego getting the best of you in the middle of a conversation about ego itself being a driving force of this behavior.   

Beyond that, if my trying to steer this back off the path of outright argument and personal attacks to an actual discussion is something to be reviled than I guess you can keep right on thinking that.  I couldn't give half a fart in a windstorm if you think that's some sort of win for you.  It's not, but it is pretty indicative of the fact that even outright stupidity spewed by yourself when poured through your own self imaging filter comes out as pure gold.  That's amazing work, really.

It is good to see that you know how to use wiki, though.  Maybe you should look up "Atheism" while you're there.   After that make a stop at Websters.com and do the same.  Then come back and give us a book report on what you've learned outside of the confines of the definitions that you are attempting to ram on others.  I already made my case on that, complete with where to find the supporting evidence at this point, while you've offered no response except more sputtering.  It's dressed up nicely, I'll give you that, but it's really nothing more than 'you're a poopy-head'

My simple core assertion that this issue is many times impacted, if not out right governed, by ego is proving itself quite nicely I think.  I don't mind your continuing to rail and I expect you will.  If you make some solid points regarding the positions I actually put out, which were really very simple statements, that would be good though.  Still waiting for some or any of that.

Unfortunately it is the 'theist scientist' fallacy at play, namely, while they may understand that the scientific method is applicable to the working environment they are in, the same degree of rigorous standards are suspended when it comes to their theism because, you know, special pleading.

I don't get how a transaction processing system could "enlighten" us "religious nuts on here" .

It's hard for me to tell if the religious nuts on here are trolling or not. You'd think being involved in bitcoin would make them a little more enlightened.


That's because they get hurt when their belief system is threatened and can't help but chime in, whereas Atheists tend to not really care or just discredit their opinion as nonsense whilst religious people have to continually defend themselves (and always poorly when it's vs reason and science).

I have always seen things differently than the people around me. Trust me when I say this, the atheists hate is actually caused by theists (at least most of the time). Growing up being different than the majority around me, people have usually looked at me through different eyes and have often rejected me. I have not hated their deluded beliefs, I have actually accepted it and let them be. Theists are the ones who reject atheists much more.

You are correct. They should have not hijacked the thread. Actually this should be punishable on the forum but I guess when they write long replies nobody really cares.

True. The funny thing is how this thread topic is a question aimed at atheists, who answer it with their personal opinion on the matter, but it ends up getting hijacked by theists and theist-apologists who end up trying to either answer it on our behalf or who try to claim our reasoned position to be erroneous while their intellectually dishonest delusion is correct.

So when we counter their fallacious argument with critical analysis, they get all butt-hurt and try to claim our position to be equal to theirs in that it is an unsubstantiated belief, too. Which it isn't because it is not a belief, it is a rejection of their belief for being fallacious.

Wouldn't it be better to go to hell? We'd have all the awesome guys and chicks there. The best part of it all is that Lauda is going to be there too. 

This thread is going out of control. This has already happened to a few threads with similar topics. The deluded people won't give in no matter what one presents them with, hence they are deluded.