Finding More Effective Ways For Atheists And Believers To Communicate

[Padawanbater2]

the inability of science to measure certain phenomena.

The flaw in your logic seems to be this; "there are things out there that current science is unable to explain, so we should give credence to supernatural claims that enough people believe." - the problem with that is the "evidence" you've suggested for justification for these beliefs doesn't amount to scientific evidence. It's fallacious reasoning, and you are completely aware of it.

science, at least in its present state, is not the be all and end all of the quest for knowledge.

There is no "be all end all" to science. It is however the best route to attaining genuine knowledge.

Do you agree with that or not?

just as twelfth century man was incapable of determining atomic structures and measuring the distances of the far universe, so too does twenty-first century man's science have its limitations.

Sure, as does anything, but the scientific method has built in it's system a way of determining what is correct and ensuring what is correct stays correct.

Why do you use this standard for science but a different standard for religion? Does religion not have it's flaws?

we may theorize from what we do know and extrapolate from the observable, but these methods do not justify the wholesale discounting of the supposed documentation.

It's in combination with theory and observation and confirmed results that we are able to discount the claims religious people make. For example, religious people make the claim the shroud of Turin is the actual shroud Jesus Christ was encased in after he was crucified, we have it so we can test it, we carbon date it and guess what, it dates to hundreds of years after Jesus' existence. So from that we can confirm that is a bullshit claim not to be taken seriously. Another example is the claim we arrived on the planet in our current form, look around at any animal, alive or dead, and you quickly figure out that's another bullshit claim by religious people. Dig up some bones, compare fossils, skeletons, anatomy, proof their claim is false.

Supposed documentation doesn't mean shit when science contradicts it. Supposed documentation has an agenda and a motive, science doesn't. It's odd you would put your trust, or at the very least, defend, this reasoning of attempting to attain knowledge over science.

it entirely ignores the limitations that are inherent in the scientific method.

Please explain to me the limitations you think the scientific method has so I understand what you mean.

so too does the scientist err in using his paltry means to determine the validity of the unmeasurable.

Determine the validity of the unmeasurable...

Explain to me how we'd do that, then explain to me why it matters.

 

[undertheice]

The difference is that the bullshit you are spouting is untestable in principle. It's not limited knowledge or resources stopping us, it is untestable period. Measuring atomic and cosmic distances has never been untestable in principle.

this is the sorry excuse of the small mind, "i can't see it, so it must not be there." with such an attitude, our search for knowledge would have ended millennia ago. in principle, there must be a way to determine whether gods exist. some means which we have not yet discovered or which are merely beyond our understanding. it would seem that everything which exists should leave some trace of itself. what you propose is simply giving up, coming to a conclusion without sufficient evidence. admitting failure and proceeding on faith alone. does any of this sound familiar? this is precisely what the believers do when they blindly embrace the religion of their choice.

don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with admitting failure. when faced with a seemingly impossible task, it is often the wisest choice to blindly commit to one path or the other. the alternative is standing still, stagnation and the end of discovery. it is merely disingenuous to claim that the conclusion is the result of reason or that the simple lack of obvious evidence is sufficient cause to refute such a longstanding mythology. you can spout as much nonsense about unicorns and fairies as you wish, but it is a small mind that cannot admit to the infinite possibilities of existence.

in the grand scheme of things, it is either a pointless question or the single most important. it depends on your point of view. i tend to believe that what is more important is how you choose to approach the question, whether you couch your answer in terms of false logic or admit to reason's failure in the matter.

 

[ginjawarrior]

this is the sorry excuse of the small mind, "i can't see it, so it must not be there." with such an attitude, our search for knowledge would have ended millennia ago. in principle, there must be a way to determine whether gods exist. some means which we have not yet discovered or which are merely beyond our understanding. it would seem that everything which exists should leave some trace of itself. what you propose is simply giving up,

giving up? no i deem i have better thing to waste my life on than proving a non entity

coming to a conclusion without sufficient evidence. admitting failure and proceeding on faith alone. does any of this sound familiar? this is precisely what the believers do when they blindly embrace the religion of their choice.

when they blindly embrace the thing they give up is the desire for new evidence
we're always happy to consider new things

don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with admitting failure. when faced with a seemingly impossible task, it is often the wisest choice to blindly commit to one path or the other. the alternative is standing still, stagnation and the end of discovery. it is merely disingenuous to claim that the conclusion is the result of reason or that the simple lack of obvious evidence is sufficient cause to refute such a longstanding mythology. you can spout as much nonsense about unicorns and fairies as you wish, but it is a small mind that cannot admit to the infinite possibilities of existence.

why is it up to us to disprove it?
surely it is a failure on the believers side when they produce no evidence?
if it is there to find them who believe are much better suited to find it no??

 

[guy incognito]

[video=youtube;iIVttyxPxnE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iIVttyxPxnE[/video]

This is what I imagine reading your posts.

 

[undertheice]

The flaw in your logic seems to be this; "there are things out there that current science is unable to explain, so we should give credence to supernatural claims that enough people believe." - the problem with that is the "evidence" you've suggested for justification for these beliefs doesn't amount to scientific evidence. It's fallacious reasoning, and you are completely aware of it.

Please explain to me the limitations you think the scientific method has so I understand what you mean.

the limitation of science is that it is entirely subject to observation and there are very strict limits to what we can and cannot observe. we cannot observe the past, so there is no way to completely test the veracity of scripture. we cannot simply demand that an event in history repeat itself. we may often be able to recreate an event or find evidence or observations from that moment in time, but the event itself is past. all of those events which left behind no perceptible evidence and which went unobserved can never be proven nor disproved and their repetition is subject to our ability to recreate the circumstances.

as much as we may theorize, we cannot go back to that moment when space and time came into being. we cannot recreate the moment when life began on this earth because we cannot recreate the world without life. all of the infinite variables may be estimated, but the actual event is lost. even our understanding of the relatively recent history of a thousand or two thousand years ago is dependent on what little evidence and observations remain. lacking definitive evidence, remaining observations are all we have upon which to base any opinion and scripture is supposedly that observation. are we to simply discount those observations because we are unable to recreate the circumstances surrounding the events? are we to ignore this evidence simply because it is not couched in scientific terms nor gathered in a currently verifiable manner? what you require is not reasonable. it's like demanding dna evidence from the investigation of jack the ripper.

Determine the validity of the unmeasurable...

Explain to me how we'd do that, then explain to me why it matters.

you're the one who brought up the subject. why does it matter to you? the assertion that science leads to a denial of the god myth, something we are unable to measure, is yours, not mine. the task i have set for myself is merely to lead you to understand the error of that assertion.

 

[Padawanbater2]

the limitation of science is that it is entirely subject to observation and there are very strict limits to what we can and cannot observe.

Why do you use a different standard of proof for science than you do for religion?

Once and for all, in your opinion, which is the better tool for attaining genuine knowledge, science or religion? Why?

we cannot observe the past, so there is no way to completely test the veracity of scripture.

Well then how is it reasonable or rational to develop a moral code based on it?

What you're saying amounts to "this peanut butter doesn't taste like chocolate at all, it's the worst peanut butter I've ever had!". The inherent limitations involved in data collection and observation in the scientific method don't make a difference in the positive claims science DOES make, which is why unknown things remain unknown. Science doesn't conclude anything until there are valid conclusions to be made.

we cannot simply demand that an event in history repeat itself. we may often be able to recreate an event or find evidence or observations from that moment in time, but the event itself is past. all of those events which left behind no perceptible evidence and which went unobserved can never be proven nor disproved and their repetition is subject to our ability to recreate the circumstances.

If the claim can't pass the test we as a society, that same society which has been shaped and influenced by organized religion as you so frequently remind me, have put in place to determine genuine knowledge then it won't be accepted by people like me.

I don't understand the benefit of lying to yourself.

lacking definitive evidence, remaining observations are all we have upon which to base any opinion and scripture is supposedly that observation.

Do you believe scripture is enough evidence to conclude the validity of any organized religions claims?

If not, what is your point?

are we to simply discount those observations because we are unable to recreate the circumstances surrounding the events?

No, we are to discount them because they can be proven wrong by science.

-the account of Genesis is wrong, according to modern science
-the geocentric model of the universe is wrong, according to modern science
-the explanations for disease is wrong, according to modern science

I could go on and on and on.. the claims that are made are proven wrong by science, then they move the goal posts, and the circle jerk continues. It's gotten to the point now where the Catholic church's formal position is that evolution happens but God is in charge.

These events are testable, the claims verifiable, and each and every time they fail.

How can you think a written account of something decades after it happened could be accurate in the least scientifically speaking? Why do you favor this approach above testing things and coming to realisitic, confirmable, measurable, testable conclusions?

are we to ignore this evidence simply because it is not couched in scientific terms nor gathered in a currently verifiable manner?

YES! That's exactly what we do. ANYTHING that isn't scientific must be thrown out. Now you're getting it!

what you require is not reasonable. it's like demanding dna evidence from the investigation of jack the ripper.

I'm sorry if my standard of proof is a bit higher than yours. It is reasonable, and consistent. Your standards of proof are very inconsistent, you seem to think it's OK to believe the account of something based on someones memory, unverified in any other way, I don't. I demand more proof, more evidence, and I believe a God who would give an organism this ability would prefer it used it. Don't you? You think God would want his subjects to just believe him without asking "well... is this shit true?"?

 

[undertheice]

ANYTHING that isn't scientific must be thrown out.

while we may both be atheists, this is where you and i part ways. man does not live by science alone. you would have us throw out art, love and the multitude of human experiences that are beyond the ken of science. you would have us define the poet through a series of ones and zeroes, sterilizing the world by demanding exact definitions for our every thought and action. you pick around the edges of the god myth, demanding sophistication from the primitive and finding fault in literary license, but never touch upon the central theme. you hide behind a facade of the rational, refusing to admit how irrational it is to toss out an entire concept simply because of the errors that surround it. you throw out the baby with the bath water and then pat yourself on the back for a job well and scientifically done.

why are you so afraid of the irrational within yourself? our dreams and our aspirations are so often made up of these imperfections. they are an integral part of what it is to be human and should be embraced just as heartily as our reason.

 

[guy incognito]

Yes pad, why so afraid of the inner irrational retard? Let it take over like undertheice has.

 

[fdd2blk]

How does gravity work. How does space work. How do stars work. How do black holes work.

Have we ever been to a star? Have we ever seen a black hole? What causes gravity. Why is space a vacuum?

There are tons of questions out there that cannot be adequately explained by science. The kicker is how the universe came to be. Please explain that one to me.

that's simple, god did it.

 

[ziggittyzag420]

wheres all the believers at?i thought this thread was suppose to be a peaceful debate between believers and athiest.. not a closed minded battle between athiest...the irrational retard in me is bummed out

 

[guy incognito]

What we are is the sum of a thousand lies. What we know is almost nothing at all.

 

[fdd2blk]

wheres all the believers at?i thought this thread was suppose to be a peaceful debate between believers and athiest.. not a closed minded battle between athiest...the irrational retard in me is bummed out

my buddy suddenly became a believer last week. i don't know where he is now. i'm the "devil" and he won't come over anymore.

 

[guy incognito]

He sounds possessed. You need to smoke the demons out of him.

 

[ChronicObsession]

Nobody is right or wrong until they are dead and go play potluck eternity bingo with God up on the 2nd level. Good luck with that.

 

[fdd2blk]

He sounds possessed. You need to smoke the demons out of him.

devil weed.

 

[ziggittyzag420]

my buddy suddenly became a believer last week. i don't know where he is now. i'm the "devil" and he won't come over anymore.

may i ask why your buddy assumes your the "devil" lol

 

[fdd2blk]

may i ask why your buddy assumes your the "devil" lol

because "i chose not to follow the righteous path of our lord jesus christ".

 

[guy incognito]

[video=youtube;NFY3c_JIx5A]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFY3c_JIx5A[/video]

 

[ziggittyzag420]

because "i chose not to follow the righteous path of our lord jesus christ".

your friend sounds like he's been fondled by the holy ghost lol my old neighbors thought i was a "devil" too,apparently they didnt take much of a liking to Randy Rhodesdam protestants

 

[ChronicObsession]

I really like this one, Homero.

What we are is the sum of a thousand lies. What we know is almost nothing at all.

I suppose the solution between the warring sides of atheism, people that believe our universe was farted into existance, and the God factions (zombie whosit?) would be for the atheists to simply shake their heads yes everytime a Fundy mentions the coolness of God. Is there enough space on this blue ball for everyone that has 2 cents to be right every time? I don't think so.