The Free Talk Live BBS
Free Talk Live => General => Topic started by: Diogenes The Cynic on January 13, 2014, 09:55:46 PM
-
Vent here. Tell us what you would actually like to see become a law.
For me, its district permit parking. I pay for the streets of my entire city and expect to be able to use them all, but some NIMBY assholes made it a fineable offense for me to park in their neighborhood.
I think that if someone lives where they have district parking, they can ONLY park there. Fuck them if they want to park in their neighborhood, and mine as well.
-
I def wouldn't call it a position, but I guess what I would consider the lesser of two evils.
My position, officially, is that government shouldn't interfere with the free expression of religion. That said, it's probably going to anyway and I kind of don't care that much. It feels like karma. Religion has interfered so much with freedom historically and I feel like overall freedom will be advanced. I think anything that promotes more rational thinking over religious thinking will help freedom in the long run.
-
This is the kind of thing I'm talking about. I'm against it... technically, but... I kinda won't mind. Privately-funded schools should be able to teach whatever, even Creationism. That said, THEY SHOULDN'T!
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/01/17/creationism-schools-alice-roberts_n_4618230.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/01/17/creationism-schools-alice-roberts_n_4618230.html)
And while we're working on ending all public schools, in the meantime, any school that gets any public funding whatsoever (unless they had no choice) should be banned from teaching Creationism.
-
This is further in line with my previous posts. I'm against taxes and I'm generally throwing kudos at any folks who can find loopholes to avoid them. That said, the religious exemption is ridiculous. It's practically a subsidy for stupidity and irrational thought, or equivalent to a tax on intelligent and rational thought.
Nebraska’s Atheist State Senator Introduces Bill That Would Force Churches to Pay Property Taxes (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/01/23/nebraskas-atheist-state-senator-introduces-bill-that-would-force-churches-to-pay-property-taxes/)
he has introduced a bill, LB675, that would eliminate a state property-tax exemption for religious organizations — essentially taxing churches.
The bill itself is a riot because all Chambers does is cross out the word “religious” from the current list of groups that are exempt from paying property taxes:
-- Read more --> (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/01/23/nebraskas-atheist-state-senator-introduces-bill-that-would-force-churches-to-pay-property-taxes/)
-
BTW, I think this thread is a great topic for discussion so I've added it to the topics for the next Flaming Freedom (http://flamingfreedom.com/2014/01/21/coming-up-on-the-january-27th-episode/).
-
Tell us what you would actually like to see become a law.
Hmmm . . .
How about,
Congress shall pass no law . . . . . . . ( ok, period ).
Congress can still try to amend the constitution, but that takes a 3/4 of the States own legislatures to agree.
-
The closest i can come to that is "laws that I would be less offended by" and restrictions on religious practice or expression in key areas falls into that category for me.
On a side-note, I'm thinking of starting a D&D religion. I know it's pretend but I'm sure there are plenty of people who want it to be real enough to start a religion. "Yes, YOU can cast a fireball if you only BELIEVE! Also, you must make a contribution to Mistra, goddess of magic. I'm her agent on Earth."
-
You mean like things that we know for certain are proven false? like the non-existence of global warming? I agree. We need a monopoly to decide who is correct when it comes to science and the science of the mind and everyone should agree with them by law. That can't be abused. /sarcasm
I'm a non-traditional creationist. I believe if you find a watch in the woods in implies the existence of a watchmaker. I believe it is a rational analogy to the miraculous (miraculous means I don't fucking know how it was done.. someone was smarter than me) machine we live on. I think you're a fucking idiot if you don't see that and I fear you if you would force your foolishness on my children or prevent me from imparting my wisdom on whoever I want. THIS is why NH and free staters is no safer a place to raise my kid than anywhere.
-
You mean like things that we know for certain are proven false? like the non-existence of global warming?
First off, just feel the need to restate that I don't believe in forcing any view on anyone with stolen money. That said, my line on what I would label "religion" is fairly unambiguous. I don't just mean really controversial opinions or bad science, loaded with bias (like a lot of global warming science), etc. I'm talking about when the word "faith" is actually used by the adherents as if it were a good and necessary thing, i.e. the belief in something without evidence. Faith is never to be questioned. In fact, that are usually repercussions for questioning it, either by humans here and now or in some faith-based after life.
Now I know that lately creationists (for example) have been coming up with creation museums and have attempted to make it into a science, but that's pretty clearly been a relatively recent act of desperation when public schools started to ban it from classrooms for not being science (which it clearly isn't). Before that, you weren't supposed to question it. But questioning and testing is the very definition of science. You're supposed to put any theory under great scrutiny and actually attempt to disprove it. If you repeatedly fail, you may get it to stick, at least for a while.
-
I still don't understand the necessity for teaching any kind of origin theory in any school.
I went to school for a Environmental Science and I had to take six biology courses. Yet, not one fig of fuck is given about evolution when I had to apply practical knowledge to my specialty.
If it "must" be available to young minds, make it an elective.
Of course getting rid of schools all together (public and private) changing the current model significantly, I find to be much more important.
-
I still don't understand the necessity for teaching any kind of origin theory in any school.
The only reason it's called a theory is for political reasons; not scientific ones--for people who don't accept it, and always for religious reasons. Politics is always corrupting science, e.g. the one we probably largely agree on--global warming. As to why it's taught, you could ask that about any subject. It's pretty foundational to a lot of biology in terms of biological classification (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_classification).
I went to school for a Environmental Science and I had to take six biology courses. Yet, not one fig of fuck is given about evolution when I had to apply practical knowledge to my specialty.
It wasn't applicable in my computer science field either but I learned a lot of things in school that were not part of my career. Neither was chemistry or history. I'm glad I learned a lot of science about the world around me besides just what I need to make a living. Knowledge has enriched my life and seeing how questions have been answered prior is helpful to my critical thinking skills. A lot of people would like to know how life came to be.
A note on science: It's always evolving and knowledge we hold to be "facts" today, even amongst the hardiest science supporters, is sure to be much different 100 years from now. And in many ways it's a religion in it's own right.
No, it's not. If it's religious at all, it's not science. You can always point to a particular case and argue for why it's badly done science, but science isn't a set of beliefs. Science represents a rigorous method for arriving at those beliefs. You should be welcome to make a case for why something is bad science that did not apply the scientific method well and should not be taught and you may very well be right. But there's no such ambiguity with religion. There should simply be a proverbial trap door underneath that is triggered by the word "faith" and SWOOSH--out it goes.
-
I still don't understand the necessity for teaching any kind of origin theory in any school.
The only reason it's called a theory is for political reasons; not scientific ones--for people who don't accept it, and always for religious reasons. Politics is always corrupting science, e.g. the one we probably largely agree on--global warming. As to why it's taught, you could ask that about any subject. It's pretty foundational to a lot of biology in terms of biological classification (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_classification).
Politics is foundational to people. People conduct science. Therefore, politics will never be separated from science. Eliminate all government, egos will still prevail and politics will always play a role in the scientific community.
I agree in a well rounded education... but by choice, not requirement. If I choose to go to school for astronautical engineering, I should not have to learn the history of rocketry. It's a benefit as it creates a well rounded person, and perhaps may provide inspiration to a solution for a problem some time down the future. Nevertheless, it should be a choice. Likewise, knowing that Australopithecus Afarensus is in our evolutionary history does little in providing a mitochondrial solution, even if I observe the same problems in a chimpanzee and want to extrapolate their process to our own. I can do so through the use of the scientific method. I do not necessarily need knowledge of evolution. Indeed, there are plenty of effective biologists who are creationists. If it were vital, they simply could not function. Yet, they do.
I went to school for a Environmental Science and I had to take six biology courses. Yet, not one fig of fuck is given about evolution when I had to apply practical knowledge to my specialty.
It wasn't applicable in my computer science field either but I learned a lot of things in school that were not part of my career. Neither was chemistry or history. I'm glad I learned a lot of science about the world around me besides just what I need to make a living. Knowledge has enriched my life and seeing how questions have been answered prior is helpful to my critical thinking skills. A lot of people would like to know how life came to be.
Read above.
A note on science: It's always evolving and knowledge we hold to be "facts" today, even amongst the hardiest science supporters, is sure to be much different 100 years from now. And in many ways it's a religion in it's own right.
No, it's not. If it's religious at all, it's not science. You can always point to a particular case and argue for why it's badly done science, but science isn't a set of beliefs. Science represents a rigorous method for arriving at those beliefs. You should be welcome to make a case for why something is bad science that did not apply the scientific method well and should not be taught and you may very well be right. But there's no such ambiguity with religion. There should simply be a proverbial trap door underneath that is triggered by the word "faith" and SWOOSH--out it goes.
In the sense that people adhere to a group of beliefs that organize the nature of their universe. Often on faith, because most of us cannot maintain all the scientific disciplines necessary in order to understand our universe and origin of our own accord. We rely on other people to relay that message.
In so doing, many people accept blindly what "experts" tell them and become as dogmatic and passionate about their beliefs, complete with all the darkness of what most would consider "actual religion", to pollute the system.
Without people to conduct it, science does not exist...it's not a thing, it's a practice. You cannot separate ego and politics from science. ergo... it's a religion. Or religious-esque
-
Politics is foundational to people. People conduct science. Therefore, politics will never be separated from science. Eliminate all government, egos will still prevail and politics will always play a role in the scientific community.
No doubt. Improving scientific processes like removing bias is an ongoing process. We will always be learning new things and devising new methods for learning new things.
I agree in a well rounded education... but by choice, not requirement.
Yes, of course. I'm a libertarian. I also hate mandatory/government/whatever education. This is kind of a devil's advocate sort of thread (sort of?) where we talk about our least libertarian positions. So I'm only addressing the reality we're stuck with right now which is public schools. Biology is considered by many to be part of what should be core knowledge and if you have biology, evolution is pretty core to that. Most biologists agree.
Indeed, there are plenty of effective biologists who are creationists. If it were vital, they simply could not function. Yet, they do.
Who's an example? It's an honest question, btw. Not trying to make a zinger. I have not investigated this claim at all. My gut inclines me to think they're probably either in a very peripheral field or specialized field or even not directly involved in science, i.e. postulating theories and testing them for validity and so on. I would not expect them to be taken seriously by other biologists so if you actually find one such as a college professor in a non-religious school, I would be honestly surprised.
Without people to conduct it, science does not exist...it's not a thing, it's a practice. You cannot separate ego and politics from science. ergo... it's a religion. Or religious-esque
Agreed that it's a practice as I said, and not a set of beliefs. It's flawed, as I acknowledged, and can always be improved. Religios-esque... maaaaaybe occasionally. But that's what I would call bad science. I'll try one more time to point out what I see as a fairly solid line between bad science and religion.
Science "expert" presenting bad science: Here's is what I believe to be true and here is the evidence for what I believe. *Presents poor evidence that didn't use good scientific method. Might even say any evidence to the contrary is "bad science" in a hypocritical fashion.*
Religios "expert": Here is what I believe on faith alone and you're just supposed to believe it on faith alone also. *Discourages any attempt to make evidence or a scientific method relevant to the discussion, possibly even with threats (like Hell).*
The "bad science" guy might question someone else's scientific methods and even be very hypocritical about it, but he at least pays lip service to the scientific method and the idea of presenting evidence for one's belief.
-
Neil's least liberty position was a desire to ban tomatoes. Lauren's least libertarian position was doggy style.
http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/43177915 (http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/43177915)
-
Science "expert" presenting bad science: Here's is what I believe to be true and here is the evidence for what I believe. *Presents poor evidence that didn't use good scientific method. Might even say any evidence to the contrary is "bad science" in a hypocritical fashion.*
I think that is very foundational to most religions. My mother will sit down and tell you that her faith isn't just a belief, that she's actually spoken with God, seen angles and miracles. There are plenty of "faithers" who have "evidence" that makes their case.
Is that evidence recordable, testable and reproducable... amongst the millions who think they have it, yeah sure in their own way and that's an essential part of the scientific method.
However, I think that mostly what I'm getting at is the attitude towards certain sectors of science that becomes like a religion. Science in and of itself isn't a religion, it's the observers attitude that is. Better way of saying it, I guess.
Example: The Ideal Gas Law isn't controversial, so we don't have frothingly mad scientists out there defending it like Dawkins who go above and beyond in presenting their case. It's the Ideal Gas Law and just is. No one cares. However you start "attacking" evolution, Dawkins will come after you with sword in one hand and a $372 copy of Foundations in Biology ed. 23, just like Jesse Duplantis with his sword and and bible. The similarities are striking. And that goes for scientists (as in your example) who are having intra-specialization squabbles. 20+ years ago "M" theory was heresy and people's careers were almost (or maybe actually) ruined if they supported it. That's the religious-esque that I'm talking about.
Welcoming debate = science
Shutting down debate = religion
Very simplistic but the best way I can relate what's floating about my head.
-
Example: The Ideal Gas Law isn't controversial,
Right. Because it doesn't present an argument that would represent evidence against a deeply held religious belief.
However you start "attacking" evolution, Dawkins will come after you with sword in one hand and a $372 copy of Foundations in Biology ed. 23, just like Jesse Duplantis with his sword and and bible.
First off, is there really a guy (Jesse D.) with a sword and a bible? That's sound comically cartoonish. If so, you just compared a guy with a sword and an unscientific ancient text written by primitives with a guy without a sword and with a modern scientific text.
And that goes for scientists (as in your example) who are having intra-specialization squabbles. 20+ years ago "M" theory was heresy and people's careers were almost (or maybe actually) ruined if they supported it. That's the religious-esque that I'm talking about.
Intra-scientific squabbles are preferable and probably unavoidable. It's part of the hard path to the truth. The attack on evolution is a real thing. It's not a debate between two scientific theories. If someone has a scientific alternative to it, it should be presented and up for discussion. Science IS debate. Dawkins and others are defending science itself when they defend evolution.
-
Example: The Ideal Gas Law isn't controversial,
Right. Because it doesn't present an argument that would represent evidence against a deeply held religious belief.
However you start "attacking" evolution, Dawkins will come after you with sword in one hand and a $372 copy of Foundations in Biology ed. 23, just like Jesse Duplantis with his sword and and bible.
First off, is there really a guy (Jesse D.) with a sword and a bible? That's sound comically cartoonish. If so, you just compared a guy with a sword and an unscientific ancient text written by primitives with a guy without a sword and with a modern scientific text.
And that goes for scientists (as in your example) who are having intra-specialization squabbles. 20+ years ago "M" theory was heresy and people's careers were almost (or maybe actually) ruined if they supported it. That's the religious-esque that I'm talking about.
I probably should have used that TBN guy...whats his face, who does 1000 lb leg presses. Anyhow, I was using metaphor. And my point is to juxtapose debate and defense . As you said, science is a debate. Dawkins comes across as an ass and a fundamentalist. No different than a TBN. There's no functional debate being had, kinda just a bomb throwing session.
Intra-scientific squabbles are preferable and probably unavoidable. It's part of the hard path to the truth. The attack on evolution is a real thing. It's not a debate between two scientific theories. If someone has a scientific alternative to it, it should be presented and up for discussion. Science IS debate. Dawkins and others are defending science itself when they defend evolution.
Well, no. The attack on "m" theory was a real thing too. You're getting into the merit of the debate rather than the characteristics. Two different things.
I really did have a least liberty position, but I absolutely forgot it.
EDIT by Dale: I took the liberty of a quick editing (code only) for readability.
-
First off, just feel the need to restate that I don't believe in forcing any view on anyone with stolen money. That said, my line on what I would label "religion" is fairly unambiguous. I don't just mean really controversial opinions or bad science, loaded with bias (like a lot of global warming science), etc. I'm talking about when the word "faith" is actually used by the adherents as if it were a good and necessary thing, i.e. the belief in something without evidence. Faith is never to be questioned. In fact, that are usually repercussions for questioning it, either by humans here and now or in some faith-based after life.
doesn't help. I still fear you. (And think that exhibiting a panicky fight or flight type response in text is completely appropriate regardless of Shaw and Brasky's preffered social conventions so don't be surprised if I get totally hostile when you continue to argue that you would be justified to use any sort of coercion whatsoever regarding people's faith.
You don't have "faith" in science? What word do you use? Who the fuck are you to define that word for me and forbid me from using it?
What scientific basis do you have for the idea that man should be free from coercion? Not wolves, or cattle. But man, alone from all other members of the animal kingdom, have the right to life and liberty. What is that if not a religious belief? And what is to stop someone with infinite faith in science treating your religious belief in freedom like what it is and coercively prevented you from practicing your faith? That ridiculous stupid religious belief that man is not morally equal to a rabbit.
-
doesn't help. I still fear you. (And think that exhibiting a panicky fight or flight type response in text is completely appropriate regardless of Shaw and Brasky's preffered social conventions so don't be surprised if I get totally hostile when you continue to argue that you would be justified to use any sort of coercion whatsoever regarding people's faith.
What? You actually quoted me saying that I don't believe in doing that. Here, I'll re-quote what you quoted me saying before you claimed in a panic (your words) that I stated I don't respect your religious rights.
First off, just feel the need to restate that I don't believe in forcing any view on anyone with stolen money.
You don't have "faith" in science? What word do you use? Who the fuck are you to define that word for me and forbid me from using it?
Science had to prove itself to me and it has to continue to prove itself to me every day. In the past, I've lost trust in old scientific methods when I was presented with better ones and I will do it again if someone makes a good case. Michael Crichton's State of Fear had that effect on me. He made me hope that his ideas for removing bias from scientific methods would become mainstream.
What scientific basis do you have for the idea that man should be free from coercion? Not wolves, or cattle. But man, alone from all other members of the animal kingdom, have the right to life and liberty. What is that if not a religious belief?
Is that a religious view for you? It's not for me. Case in point--I had already added a subject to topics for the next Flaming Freedom to question whether freedom (from coercion) is the penultimate value. You know what inspired me to add it? I've spent half the week cat wranglin' to put medicine in my cat's ear. She's... not a fan of this process, to put it lightly. But I'm confident that she wants her ear to stop hurting and that she doesn't know that what I'm doing is helping. I'm smarter than her to an exponential degree. If I had an illness that was making me miserable and would likely get worse and that humans couldn't cure (maybe not even diagnose) but some super-advanced alien race with brains 100 times more advanced than ours did have a cure, I would hope that they would abduct me, by force if necessary, and apply the cure for my own good.
But government is made up of other humans with brains just like mine. Freedom is much closer to the scientific method. Let lots of people try different things. Let's test all these theories out with open minds and let's see what works best. We're not allowed to do that by government. Government is much like religion, fixated on tired old beliefs despite any evidence to the contrary, and stuck in their old ways.
And what is to stop someone with infinite faith in science treating your religious belief in freedom like what it is and coercively prevented you from practicing your faith?
Clearly there are people preventing me from practicing my non-religious belief in freedom. We're not free. So now that the premise has been revised, what's your point? If someone is powerful and willing to use violence, all rational discussion becomes irrelevant. They will get their way.
I'm bigger and smarter than my cat and willing to use force (short of hurting her) to hold her still and shove a little plastic tube into her ear canal and squirt crap in there for her own good. At least I'm fairly confident it's for her own good. I hope I'm right.
-
Is that a religious view for you? It's not for me.
Disclaimer: I think it used to be, but I try not to be stuck in my old ways of thinking. I like to think that I'm getting smarter with age and experience. If you dig up statements I made even a few years ago, I might very well sound somewhat religious about freedom.
-
I have a hard time letting go of the concept of having one universal protector of rights that's unbiased and acts only in the interest in defending rights. e.g. Police...nothing like what we have today, but someone to look into murders, theft and so forth.
I really don't know where I sit on this.
-
I have a hard time letting go of the concept of having one universal protector of rights that's unbiased and acts only in the interest in defending rights. e.g. Police...nothing like what we have today, but someone to look into murders, theft and so forth.
That feeling is completely relatable. It's desire-driven rather than reality driven. Reality isn't subservient to our needs. If I need food, that's is not proof for the existence of any edible food within my reach. If I have an advanced form of cancer, I need a cure. The need for a cure is not evidence that the cure currently (or ever) exists. We undoubtedly need an after life. Otherwise we will die! That need has no bearing on whether such a thing exists.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/WVht0rX.jpg)
-
(http://i.imgur.com/WVht0rX.jpg)
This happens to me often. My mother and I will have be having a wonderful conversation, especially about the state of the US and when I think I'm making progress, I hear, "Were God's people, he's not giving up on this nation...promises, plan etc."
Then I just get pissed because it's the functional equivalent of a three year old plugging her hears with her fingers shouting, "I can't hear you la la la la..."
It makes me want to shove my head through a mirror while licking the inside of a battery.
-
It makes me want to shove my head through a mirror while licking the inside of a battery.
Really? It makes me want to knock 'em really hard against the side of the head and see if I can get the gears spinning again. It works for the Fonz.
But I don't.
-
I'm talking about when the word "faith" is actually used by the adherents as if it were a good and necessary thing, i.e. the belief in something without evidence.
Regardless of adherents using the word "faith", many adherents rely upon "faith" for things.
For example, the "nonexistence of God" is a thing and that thing relies upon faith for the adherents of that thing.
Regardless of what Atheists say, the "nonexistence of God" can NOT be proven (science shows that),
thus adherents of atheism are left with "faith" that "nonexistence of God" is true.
And if an atheist considers adherence to atheism to be a good and necessary thing,
that connotes that faith is also considered to be a good and necessary thing.
-
Regardless of what Atheists say, the "nonexistence of God" can NOT be proven (science shows that),
Of course, because you can't prove the nonexistence of anything--not Jehova, not Jesus, not Zeus, not the tooth fairy, not flying purple people-eaters, not the blonde genie from I Dream of Jeanie. There could be blonde wish-granting genies on a planet billions of light-years away from the furthest point in space we could ever reach with the most advanced space vessels, but I don't believe in them. I'm not claiming science proves they don't exist; only that they're a ridiculous concept and astronomically unlikely based on everything I know. That's why the burden of proof is on someone trying to claim the existence of something and not on the disbeliever (since proving the nonexistence of something is impossible).
-
Of course, because you can't prove the nonexistence of anything
I am not so sure of this, I can prove there is not a heterosexual version of Dalebert. For there can be only one Dalebert, and he is self proclaimed homosexual.
In the same fashion, you can prove there is no "god" since man is incapable of understanding such a thing (irregardless of it's actual existence or not) so whatever we perceive is the case is actually not.
In other words, our interpretation of such a thing will not cover the actual concept.
Like it is funny that god is usually portrayed as a man..
-
I am not so sure of this, I can prove there is not a heterosexual version of Dalebert. For there can be only one Dalebert, and he is self proclaimed homosexual.
But I exist and I'm right here. That's a case being made about the state of something that's right here. The existence of me is not the dispute. That might make for a fun thread though. 8)
In the same fashion, you can prove there is no "god" since man is incapable of understanding such a thing (irregardless of it's actual existence or not) so whatever we perceive is the case is actually not.
You're back to arguing about the state of something; not whether it actually exists. That's not a particularly meaningful thing to me. "We can't possibly understand God" is a statement that a lot of believers will agree with you on. It's the justification for saying "It's God's plan" and "God works in mysterious ways". I agree, however, that you could argue that a specific notion of something posited to exist in a specific state might be paradoxical. In that case, you can argue that it's not possible to exist in the state described, and that wouldn't be a scientific argument but rather a logic argument.
Like it is funny that god is usually portrayed as a man..
Yes. :lol:
-
But I exist and I'm right here. That's a case being made about the state of something that's right here. The existence of me is not the dispute. That might make for a fun thread though. 8)
Yes you exist bit not in the configuration where you are straight. And if there was then it would not be you.
In the same fashion, you can prove there is no "god" since man is incapable of understanding such a thing (irregardless of it's actual existence or not) so whatever we perceive is the case is actually not.
You're back to arguing about the state of something; not whether it actually exists. That's not a particularly meaningful thing to me. "We can't possibly understand God" is a statement that a lot of believers will agree with you on. It's the justification for saying "It's God's plan" and "God works in mysterious ways". I agree, however, that you could argue that a specific notion of something posited to exist in a specific state might be paradoxical. In that case, you can argue that it's not possible to exist in the state described, and that wouldn't be a scientific argument but rather a logic argument.
My point is if you can't define such a thing then even if later you had all knowledge for everything for all time and wanted to say "see there was/wasn't a god." You couldn't because what you didn't understand changes the nature of the thing. Ultimately, you are saying that anything close enough would be confirmation. So the star trek movie where they get stuck on a planet with "a god" wanting the ship to get out.. Is that god? Would you then point to that thing and proclaim it was what you were taking about? Or would you be a fool like Spock's brother?
Like imagine for a second god arrived, he is the biggest fag (no offense i mean flamboyant gay) ever.. Is that the god in the Bible that the Bible beaters are talking about with the homosexuality is a sin shit? Or do you conclude their god never existed?
-
you can't prove the nonexistence of anything-
Not exactly true.
If the exhaustive method can be employed ( one of many scientific methods )
the a nonexistence claim can be proven.
If one claims that a toilet does not exist in a certain room
and the room can be exhaustively searched,
then that claim can be proven one way or the other.
Regardless of what Atheists say, the "nonexistence of God" can NOT be proven (science shows that),
That's why the burden of proof is on someone trying to claim the existence
The burden of proof is on the one making a claim regardless of whether
the claim concerns the existence of something
or if the claim concerns the nonexistence of something.
One who claims "the belief in the nonexistence of God and that the belief does not rely upon faith"
bears the burden of proof to show that either a) God does not exist or b) that they do not rely upon faith for that belief.
All atheists rely upon "faith" and that can be proven (and just was proven :-0) ).
-
All atheists rely upon "faith" and that can be proven (and just was proven :-0) ).
Well, then, next time anyone sees an Atheist ridiculing someone for having "faith" for their belief in something
maybe we should tell them they have a beam in their own eye ?
Nah. Let them alone.
-
ridiculing someone
There's a saying that goes something like this . . .
First they ridicule you.
Then they ignore you.
Then they fight you.
And then you win.
Ridicule is a slippery slope that has losers at the bottom.
But then again, not all opinion is intended as ridicule, so don't jump to conclusions.
But when ignoring ensues, followed by fighting, well, ...
-
There's a saying that goes something like this . . .
HEY!!! Quit hogging the thread !!
( "hogging" not intended as ridicule :-0) )
-
Like imagine for a second god arrived, he is the biggest fag (no offense i mean flamboyant gay) ever.. Is that the god in the Bible that the Bible beaters are talking about with the homosexuality is a sin shit? Or do you conclude their god never existed?
That's why if anyone wants to start having a discussion about the existence of "God", I say the first thing we have to do is establish exactly what their version is. I find some notions of a god to be less absurd than others.
A broad lack of evidence for the existence of something is evidence for it's nonexistence. Like when they scanned the entire Loch Ness from one side to the other and giant lizards are kind of hard to hide from that, and when you combine that with the lack of any evidence of any scientific substance for decades of people actively looking for it, that's still not 100% conclusive forever and always. But concluding there is no lochness monster* is not a faith-based conclusion. It's an evidence-based conclusion. I don't believe in the lochness monster means I'm fairly confident it doesn't exist due to the complete lack of evidence when a giant creature like that would be rather difficult to hide and there'd probably be substantial evidence by now. If they catch him some day and I can go see him at Sea World, I'll be all "Shit! I was WRAWNG!" and I will change my belief.
*Keeping in mind that the claim is it's based in a specific lake; hence the name. There might be something like it on a planet in another galaxy or something.
-
A broad lack of evidence for the existence of something is evidence for it's nonexistence.
Having less than 100% conclusive evidence for the nonexistence of something is not conclusive proof for the nonexistence of something.
That said, there is no broad lack of evidence of intelligent design in the universe.
There is enough broad evidence of intelligent design in the universe to support a reasonable belief in God, though still a belief by faith.
not 100% conclusive forever and always.
Whatever part is less than 100% conclusive is "faith".
concluding there is no lochness monster* is not a faith-based conclusion. It's an evidence-based conclusion.
Your logic fails because you draw a false dichotomy between faith-based and evidence-based.
Any evidence-based conclusion is ALSO a faith-based conclusion UNLESS the evidence is 100% conclusive.
There is nothing that forces anyone to hold an evidence-based belief that something is true
when the evidence is less than 100% conclusive.
The CHOICE to believe that something is true without 100% conclusiveness is the act of "faith".
-
Like imagine for a second god arrived, he is the biggest fag (no offense i mean flamboyant gay) ever.. Is that the god in the Bible that the Bible beaters are talking about with the homosexuality is a sin shit? Or do you conclude their god never existed?
That's why if anyone wants to start having a discussion about the existence of "God", I say the first thing we have to do is establish exactly what their version is. I find some notions of a god to be less absurd than others.
You missed the point. The case is, whatever they have in their mind isn't want is to their thing doesn't exist!
A broad lack of evidence for the existence of something is evidence for it's nonexistence. Like when they scanned the entire Loch Ness from one side to the other and giant lizards are kind of hard to hide from that, and when you combine that with the lack of any evidence of any scientific substance for decades of people actively looking for it, that's still not 100% conclusive forever and always. But concluding there is no lochness monster* is not a faith-based conclusion. It's an evidence-based conclusion. I don't believe in the lochness monster means I'm fairly confident it doesn't exist due to the complete lack of evidence when a giant creature like that would be rather difficult to hide and there'd probably be substantial evidence by now. If they catch him some day and I can go see him at Sea World, I'll be all "Shit! I was WRAWNG!" and I will change my belief.
*Keeping in mind that the claim is it's based in a specific lake; hence the name. There might be something like it on a planet in another galaxy or something.
Then that would not be the lochness monster.. for the "lochness moster" is defined as lizard thing that lives that that specific lake.. If you find something on another planet, you concluding that it was that just proves that you should not be making determinations of any kind..
-
I think I'm ready for some serious anti-Facebook legislation. All of my libertarian friends are... somehow, still on Facebook which has caused me to lose faith in the free market and go full-on statist. I'm running for president so I can destroy FB with the military.
Facebook Fraud (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVfHeWTKjag#ws)