Why do Atheists Hate Religion?

[the joint]

You'd think being involved in bitcoin would make them a little more enlightened.

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.

snip-

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

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.

[1714111201]

1714111201

[1714111201]

1714111201

[celestio]

You'd think being involved in bitcoin would make them a little more enlightened.

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.

snip-

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

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.

Ok thank you it's an interesting read.

[BADecker]

You'd think being involved in bitcoin would make them a little more enlightened.

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.

snip-

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

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.

Ok thank you it's an interesting read.

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.

[the joint]

You'd think being involved in bitcoin would make them a little more enlightened.

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.

snip-

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

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.

Ok thank you it's an interesting read.

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.

None of that sentence matters regarding anything I said.

[Beliathon]

I'll make it easier for you. If belief equals '1', in that an affirmative statement towards the existence of something is held to be true by the theist, the atheist position is not '-1', it is still '0' because the atheist is not asserting the existence or non-existence of anything, the atheist is rejecting the theist assertion, he is not disproving it. There is no need to disprove because the theist is the one who is making a claim towards the existence of something and that claim is invalid.

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.

[BADecker]

I'll make it easier for you. If belief equals '1', in that an affirmative statement towards the existence of something is held to be true by the theist, the atheist position is not '-1', it is still '0' because the atheist is not asserting the existence or non-existence of anything, the atheist is rejecting the theist assertion, he is not disproving it. There is no need to disprove because the theist is the one who is making a claim towards the existence of something and that claim is invalid.

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.

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.

[the joint]

I'll make it easier for you. If belief equals '1', in that an affirmative statement towards the existence of something is held to be true by the theist, the atheist position is not '-1', it is still '0' because the atheist is not asserting the existence or non-existence of anything, the atheist is rejecting the theist assertion, he is not disproving it. There is no need to disprove because the theist is the one who is making a claim towards the existence of something and that claim is invalid.

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.

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.

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.  

[BADecker]

I'll make it easier for you. If belief equals '1', in that an affirmative statement towards the existence of something is held to be true by the theist, the atheist position is not '-1', it is still '0' because the atheist is not asserting the existence or non-existence of anything, the atheist is rejecting the theist assertion, he is not disproving it. There is no need to disprove because the theist is the one who is making a claim towards the existence of something and that claim is invalid.

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.

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.

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.  

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.

[the joint]

I'll make it easier for you. If belief equals '1', in that an affirmative statement towards the existence of something is held to be true by the theist, the atheist position is not '-1', it is still '0' because the atheist is not asserting the existence or non-existence of anything, the atheist is rejecting the theist assertion, he is not disproving it. There is no need to disprove because the theist is the one who is making a claim towards the existence of something and that claim is invalid.

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.

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.

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.  

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) 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?

[BADecker]

I'll make it easier for you. If belief equals '1', in that an affirmative statement towards the existence of something is held to be true by the theist, the atheist position is not '-1', it is still '0' because the atheist is not asserting the existence or non-existence of anything, the atheist is rejecting the theist assertion, he is not disproving it. There is no need to disprove because the theist is the one who is making a claim towards the existence of something and that claim is invalid.

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.

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.

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.  

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) 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?

(Chuckle.)

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

 

[the joint]

I'll make it easier for you. If belief equals '1', in that an affirmative statement towards the existence of something is held to be true by the theist, the atheist position is not '-1', it is still '0' because the atheist is not asserting the existence or non-existence of anything, the atheist is rejecting the theist assertion, he is not disproving it. There is no need to disprove because the theist is the one who is making a claim towards the existence of something and that claim is invalid.

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.

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.

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.  

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) 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?

(Chuckle.)

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

 

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

TKO.

[RitzBitzz]

The christian's heaven is a joke.  I couldn't imagine sharing it with people like Osama Bin Laden.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_JoE2GioXY

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.

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.

Theists are the ones who reject atheists much more.

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).

How does working with new currency make you "enlightened"?

[BADecker]

I'll make it easier for you. If belief equals '1', in that an affirmative statement towards the existence of something is held to be true by the theist, the atheist position is not '-1', it is still '0' because the atheist is not asserting the existence or non-existence of anything, the atheist is rejecting the theist assertion, he is not disproving it. There is no need to disprove because the theist is the one who is making a claim towards the existence of something and that claim is invalid.

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.

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.

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.  

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) 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?

(Chuckle.)

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

 

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

TKO.

Well, it could be if the transformer was shorting. Is your transformer shorting? 

 

[gangz]

Seems like there's extremists on both sides, Atheists that will argue with priests and priests who will argue back. They're both fucking crazy 

[Vod]

Seems like there's extremists on both sides, Atheists that will argue with priests and priests who will argue back. They're both fucking crazy  

Atheists use facts.  Theists use beliefs.  Only one is crazy, and you are either one or the other! 

Every person had their own "god" inside their own mind. (Yes, you could claim there are over seven billion gods in the world.)  Atheists call it our consciousness. However, most theists are vain and believe their god can influence things outside of their own mind.  That's where the conflict comes in - with atheists and with each other.  Theists can't even decide on what heaven would be like, because each one has people they do and don't want there.  So obviously heaven exists just within your mind as well.

As an atheist I know your god is limited to your brain, so it doesn't bother me what you believe.  I don't hate religion, but I do feel sorry for their brainwashed cult members, and it does bother me when they try and push their ignorance on other people.  

Here's a hint to Theists:  The majority of people in the world do not believe what you believe!  Take the hint!

[BADecker]

Seems like there's extremists on both sides, Atheists that will argue with priests and priests who will argue back. They're both fucking crazy  

Atheists use facts.  Theists use beliefs.  Only one is crazy, and you are either one or the other!  Smiley

Where do you find atheists? Where do you find theists? In the same places - on the job, driving cars and trucks etc., at school, in the libraries, in the shopping centers, at the movie theaters. There are even a few atheists in churches on Sunday for one reason or another.

The point? Atheists and theists use the same things. The only difference is their focus.

Every person had their own "god" inside their own mind. (Yes, you could claim there are over seven billion gods in the world.)  Atheists call it our consciousness. However, most theists are vain and believe their god can influence things outside of their own mind.  That's where the conflict comes in - with atheists and with each other.  Theists can't even decide on what heaven would be like, because each one has people they do and don't want there.  So obviously heaven exists just within your mind as well.

The point is, both atheists and theists don't know for a fact that God exists or doesn't exist, or that God can or can't affect things outside or inside the minds of any people. Their differing focus is in how they believe, making atheism a religion just like theists have their religions.

Deciding on what Heaven is like or is not like is simply a slightly greater focus on an opinion that Heaven does exist, while others are of the opinion that Heaven does not exist.

As an atheist I know your god is limited to your brain, so it doesn't bother me what you believe.  I don't hate religion, but I do feel sorry for their brainwashed cult members, and it does bother me when they try and push their ignorance on other people.  

Here's a hint to Theists:  The majority of people in the world do not believe what you believe!  Take the hint!

As a thinking, reasoning person, it is easy to see that proof for or against the existence of God is a difficult thing to find. And understanding this proves that atheism is at least near religion, if not in fact religion. However, I do respect the atheist's right to his/her beliefs.

[Vod]

gangz - while I haven't been able to read from the user above me for over a year, I know from seeing quotes that he is one of the theists/cult members I warned you about.

Is he claiming his god is the true god? delusion
Is he claiming everyone else in the world is wrong? delusion
Is he claiming he knows better than science? delusion
Is he making statements told to him by his parent's which he can't back up?  brainwashing

He is a perfect example of why atheists don't get along with theists.  We understand everyone has their own belief, while they believe their belief is THE belief.  (understand?  lol)  They attempt to push their beliefs on us, while we believe everyone has the right to their own beliefs.  conflict/hate

Just ignore people like him (like I do) and the conflict/hate will go away.  

[Lauda]

gangz - while I haven't been able to read from the user above me for over a year, I know from seeing quotes that he is one of the theists/cult members I warned you about.

Is he claiming his god is the true god? delusion
Is he claiming everyone else in the world is wrong? delusion
Is he claiming he knows better than science? delusion
Is he making statements told to him by his parent's which he can't back up?  brainwashing

He is a perfect example of why atheists don't get along with theists.  We understand everyone has their own belief, while they believe their belief is THE belief.  (understand?  lol)  They attempt to push their beliefs on us, while we believe everyone has the right to their own beliefs.  conflict/hate

Just ignore people like him (like I do) and the conflict/hate will go away.  

Correct. I've recently also put that user to ignore. Anyone who can't properly lead a discussion and use arguments should be ignored. Why should I waste my time trying to prove something to a deluded person?
He will either go into a defensive stance and defend theists while saying that "god" is love, everything and whatnot. delusion  ;or he will put atheists and theists in the same bag.
This is actually quite simple to understand. They believe that their belief is 'the truth', while it isn't based on anything aside from fairy tales written in some random book.

[galdur]

Well, no god or gods have ever made their existence known to me. I have heard people claim that they are in regular contact but I only have their word for it. To me it´s only hearsay. In any event if this god or gods really had ever communicated with priests or prelates or any holy men, which claim to be kind of representatives of these deities  - there would presumably have been at least a rough estimate agreed upon as to their number. But there are virtually countless gods according to the believers and all the priestcraft of diverse religions  and tons of versions of the same supposed god even. Which obviously means that there is no god or gods or if they exist they haven´t yet bothered to make their existence known to humans. Amen and qumen.

[Vod]

Correct. I've recently also put that user to ignore.

I've had him on ignore for over a year and he has no clue. lol  I see him posting away in a futile attempt to brainwash me.

All you can do is feel sorry for him.  His parents never gave him a chance, just like they were probably never given a chance.