Convert Me!!!

[Biot-Savart Law]

Tornado_Creator

Angels_Satire

Tornado_Creator

Angels_Satire

Tornado_Creator

Angels_Satire

Buddhism is depressing?

I never thought so. I guess it's all opinion, anyways.

They take the most depressing part of atheism. The part that I hate and honestly have trouble coping with and make it the goal of their lives. If that's not depressing what is? But yes, that is entirely personal.

What's the most depressing part of atheism?

That there is no afterlife, you just die and that's the end. Granted atheism is just the disbelief in God, but the vast majority of atheists are logical, rational people who also don't believe in the afterlife or any other supernatural crap so please no ******** nit-picking, I'm not in the mood.

Look up Nirvana, it's pretty much, you assend and stop existing.

I can't say that the majority of atheists I've come across are more rational or logical than most people, so I don't think that's particularly true.

If I said 'most black people are X' it would not be nit-picking to ask for proof of this, no?

And even then, I've also heard nirvana described as the absolute peace one gets from freeing themselves from desire and suffering and all that, not so much non-existence in all cases.

Buddhism really is subject to interpretation.

As for atheists being more rational or logical. Hows this; they don't believe in a overlord being without even a scrap of evidence, everyone else does. I would say that proves my point.

On top of this the majority of scientists are atheists, and in comparison to world population or country population, the population of atheists amongst scientists is much larger than it should if given an even spread. Would you like me to back this up with figures or are you going to stop being intellectually dishonest because you know I'm telling the truth.

Theists and atheists can have evidence both ways. No, there's not scientific evidence for a deity as far as I'm aware, but there's none against one as far as I'm aware. And people do have personal evidence. While I wouldn't note, say, how something makes me feel in my physics lab, I have no way of nixing that for other things.

And I'm aware of the numbers. Religious folks are the rarest in my field. But correlation does not imply causation, as the stats chant goes. It's hard to see how I'm the one being intellectually dishonest around here.

[Tornado_Creator]

(quotes cut back as the subject changed)

Angels_Satire

Tornado_Creator

As for atheists being more rational or logical. Hows this; they don't believe in a overlord being without even a scrap of evidence, everyone else does. I would say that proves my point.

On top of this the majority of scientists are atheists, and in comparison to world population or country population, the population of atheists amongst scientists is much larger than it should if given an even spread. Would you like me to back this up with figures or are you going to stop being intellectually dishonest because you know I'm telling the truth.

Theists and atheists can have evidence both ways. No, there's not scientific evidence for a deity as far as I'm aware, but there's none against one as far as I'm aware. And people do have personal evidence. While I wouldn't note, say, how something makes me feel in my physics lab, I have no way of nixing that for other things.

And I'm aware of the numbers. Religious folks are the rarest in my field. But correlation does not imply causation, as the stats chant goes. It's hard to see how I'm the one being intellectually dishonest around here.

I can tell you exactly why you're being intellectually dishonest. "No, there's not scientific evidence for a deity as far as I'm aware, but there's none against one as far as I'm aware". This sentence is bullshit and you know it.

How about this version. "No, there's not scientific evidence for dragons as far as I'm aware, but there's none against them as far as I'm aware"

You know it's bullshit yet you say it anyway. As a scientist you know that it is impossible to prove the non-existence of anything. Non-existence is the assumed as existence can be argued, non-existence cannot. If you have any college level education in science you know this is true, in fact it's the basis of the scientific method, yet you still tote that pathetic argument. Say it again and I'll just ignore you when it comes to this topic, you've said it so much now it must surely be into double figures already. That argument is absolutely fallacious and you know it, it's tired, it's old, and if it's all you've got I'd rather not have to read your posts. Come up with something original and intelligent, or concede.

[Boxy]

Tornado_Creator

I can tell you exactly why you're being intellectually dishonest. "No, there's not scientific evidence for a deity as far as I'm aware, but there's none against one as far as I'm aware". This sentence is bullshit and you know it.

How about this version. "No, there's not scientific evidence for dragons as far as I'm aware, but there's none against them as far as I'm aware"

You know it's bullshit yet you say it anyway. As a scientist you know that it is impossible to prove the non-existence of anything. Non-existence is the assumed as existence can be argued, non-existence cannot. If you have any college level education in science you know this is true, in fact it's the basis of the scientific method, yet you still tote that pathetic argument. Say it again and I'll just ignore you when it comes to this topic, you've said it so much now it must surely be into double figures already. That argument is absolutely fallacious and you know it, it's tired, it's old, and if it's all you've got I'd rather not have to read your posts. Come up with something original and intelligent, or concede.

Huh. Really now. Could you care to provide evidence that the Universe exists independently of the mind of any individual person? I know that Descartes used solipsist skepticism as a method of understanding the Universe, but he was never able to prove much of anything other than his own existence ("Cogito ergo sum") and argue for God's existence (If I can imagine a being superior to my own, that superiority must needs not have arisen from my own mind; therefore, that which is superior to myself must objectively exist. As some things are superior to others, we must needs call the most superior thing God - a rough paraphrase to be sure, but it gets the job done).

There is some room in the fields of science for axioms and assumptions. However, the result of those axioms and assumptions can never verify themselves (see Godel's incompleteness theorem for more information). Thus, when we assume something exists, we cannot prove that assumption by checking out the implications. We can only disprove it, and knowledge eventually becomes an association of things not likely to happen.

My main beef with you is that you will not experiment with Christianity or any other type of theism. You want data, but you discount data collected by anyone else as too "subjective" and refuse to collect and interpret the data yourself. I call that an "armchair scientist." Please be kind to explain why the data collection process for theism is fundamentally flawed.

[sol-inviticus]

Tornado_Creator

(quotes cut back as the subject changed)

Angels_Satire

Tornado_Creator

As for atheists being more rational or logical. Hows this; they don't believe in a overlord being without even a scrap of evidence, everyone else does. I would say that proves my point.

On top of this the majority of scientists are atheists, and in comparison to world population or country population, the population of atheists amongst scientists is much larger than it should if given an even spread. Would you like me to back this up with figures or are you going to stop being intellectually dishonest because you know I'm telling the truth.

Theists and atheists can have evidence both ways. No, there's not scientific evidence for a deity as far as I'm aware, but there's none against one as far as I'm aware. And people do have personal evidence. While I wouldn't note, say, how something makes me feel in my physics lab, I have no way of nixing that for other things.

And I'm aware of the numbers. Religious folks are the rarest in my field. But correlation does not imply causation, as the stats chant goes. It's hard to see how I'm the one being intellectually dishonest around here.

I can tell you exactly why you're being intellectually dishonest. "No, there's not scientific evidence for a deity as far as I'm aware, but there's none against one as far as I'm aware". This sentence is bullshit and you know it.

How about this version. "No, there's not scientific evidence for dragons as far as I'm aware, but there's none against them as far as I'm aware"

You know it's bullshit yet you say it anyway. As a scientist you know that it is impossible to prove the non-existence of anything. Non-existence is the assumed as existence can be argued, non-existence cannot. If you have any college level education in science you know this is true, in fact it's the basis of the scientific method, yet you still tote that pathetic argument. Say it again and I'll just ignore you when it comes to this topic, you've said it so much now it must surely be into double figures already. That argument is absolutely fallacious and you know it, it's tired, it's old, and if it's all you've got I'd rather not have to read your posts. Come up with something original and intelligent, or concede.

Wait a minute..

If you say that it is impossible to prove the non-existence of anything, then wouldn't the statement "no scientific evidence against God" be a true statement?

Also I love your sig. Historical fantasy is one of my favorite genres.

[Ethermus Prime]

Quote:

That argument is absolutely fallacious and you know it, it's tired, it's old, and if it's all you've got I'd rather not have to read your posts. Come up with something original and intelligent, or concede.

Funny...I have all the same feelings toward Militant Atheist, and those who appeal to science as the only method of understand reality.

[Tornado_Creator]

Boxy

Tornado_Creator

I can tell you exactly why you're being intellectually dishonest. "No, there's not scientific evidence for a deity as far as I'm aware, but there's none against one as far as I'm aware". This sentence is bullshit and you know it.

How about this version. "No, there's not scientific evidence for dragons as far as I'm aware, but there's none against them as far as I'm aware"

You know it's bullshit yet you say it anyway. As a scientist you know that it is impossible to prove the non-existence of anything. Non-existence is the assumed as existence can be argued, non-existence cannot. If you have any college level education in science you know this is true, in fact it's the basis of the scientific method, yet you still tote that pathetic argument. Say it again and I'll just ignore you when it comes to this topic, you've said it so much now it must surely be into double figures already. That argument is absolutely fallacious and you know it, it's tired, it's old, and if it's all you've got I'd rather not have to read your posts. Come up with something original and intelligent, or concede.

Huh. Really now. Could you care to provide evidence that the Universe exists independently of the mind of any individual person? I know that Descartes used solipsist skepticism as a method of understanding the Universe, but he was never able to prove much of anything other than his own existence ("Cogito ergo sum") and argue for God's existence (If I can imagine a being superior to my own, that superiority must needs not have arisen from my own mind; therefore, that which is superior to myself must objectively exist. As some things are superior to others, we must needs call the most superior thing God - a rough paraphrase to be sure, but it gets the job done).

There is some room in the fields of science for axioms and assumptions. However, the result of those axioms and assumptions can never verify themselves (see Godel's incompleteness theorem for more information). Thus, when we assume something exists, we cannot prove that assumption by checking out the implications. We can only disprove it, and knowledge eventually becomes an association of things not likely to happen.

My main beef with you is that you will not experiment with Christianity or any other type of theism. You want data, but you discount data collected by anyone else as too "subjective" and refuse to collect and interpret the data yourself. I call that an "armchair scientist." Please be kind to explain why the data collection process for theism is fundamentally flawed.

Because it doesn't follow the scientific method. It's that simple.

[Tornado_Creator]

Ethermus Prime

Quote:

That argument is absolutely fallacious and you know it, it's tired, it's old, and if it's all you've got I'd rather not have to read your posts. Come up with something original and intelligent, or concede.

Funny...I have all the same feelings toward Militant Atheist, and those who appeal to science as the only method of understand reality.

Science has a track record of success unparalleled by anything else. If you don't like it kindly stop using the internet, if you dare to use something created by scientific advancement and then claim that science isn't good enough to understand reality you are a damn hypocrite. It's fine for use for communication, medicine, sanitation, entertainment, agriculture, inter-continental transportation, city infrastructure and forensic law, but it's not good enough for understanding reality. You're an idiot if you think that. Come up with something better than science and I'll concede this point.

[Boxy]

Tornado_Creator

Because it doesn't follow the scientific method. It's that simple.

Chemistry does not follow the scientific method. However, we understand chemistry by applying the scientific method - gathering information, drawing hypotheses, testing those hypotheses, refining your thesis, and repeating ad nauseam.

Your refusal to do this with religion means that you're committing the logical fallacy called special pleading. You have to describe why religion is fundamentally incapable of being probed with the scientific method. Otherwise, you're trying to have your cake and eat it, too.

Subjectivity has more to do with the way data is collected and interpreted than it does with the subject matter. One can be objective in describing subjective phenomena - "The subject is reporting X feelings, and there is an increase in brain activity in area Y."

We've talked about gnosis a number of times, which is a catch-all word for just about every type of religious experience, including visions, revelation, glossalalia, healings, et al. However, you have yet to explain why gnosis is not relevant information for proving or disproving religion, as you have yet to come up with a theory of what gnosis is, other than tossing it aside as "subjective" in nature.

Thought is subjective, but nobody really throws that out when talking about psychology.

[Boxy]

Tornado_Creator

Science has a track record of success unparalleled by anything else. If you don't like it kindly stop using the internet, if you dare to use something created by scientific advancement and then claim that science isn't good enough to understand reality you are a damn hypocrite.

Straw man. Ethermus Prime merely critiqued the argument that science is "the only method to understand reality." Ethermus did not state that science is not good for anything, merely that it is not everything.

Tornado_Creator

It's fine for use for communication, medicine, sanitation, entertainment, agriculture, inter-continental transportation, city infrastructure and forensic law, but it's not good enough for understanding reality.

None of those started out with science. Even forensic law started out with debate and rhetoric, which were hardly practitioners of hard-nosed scientific neutrality.

There's even the idea that religion started things like agriculture and society. Catal Hoyuk is the oldest and largest settlement known to man - from about 7,500 BCE, it held a population of about 10,000. What is very interesting is that this population was apparently sustained without agriculture - a city of oughly 10,000 hunter-gatherers. It has been suggested that what united these people together was a common cultural framework - a religion, of sorts. If so, then religion - the way early man understood his surroundings - has been the progenitor of human culture ever since the very beginning.

[Tornado_Creator]

Boxy

Tornado_Creator

Science has a track record of success unparalleled by anything else. If you don't like it kindly stop using the internet, if you dare to use something created by scientific advancement and then claim that science isn't good enough to understand reality you are a damn hypocrite.

Straw man. Ethermus Prime merely critiqued the argument that science is "the only method to understand reality." Ethermus did not state that science is not good for anything, merely that it is not everything.

Tornado_Creator

It's fine for use for communication, medicine, sanitation, entertainment, agriculture, inter-continental transportation, city infrastructure and forensic law, but it's not good enough for understanding reality.

None of those started out with science. Even forensic law started out with debate and rhetoric, which were hardly practitioners of hard-nosed scientific neutrality.

There's even the idea that religion started things like agriculture and society. Catal Hoyuk is the oldest and largest settlement known to man - from about 7,500 BCE, it held a population of about 10,000. What is very interesting is that this population was apparently sustained without agriculture - a city of oughly 10,000 hunter-gatherers. It has been suggested that what united these people together was a common cultural framework - a religion, of sorts. If so, then religion - the way early man understood his surroundings - has been the progenitor of human culture ever since the very beginning.

I'm not even going to bother debating with you any more Boxy, you seem to argue every point I make just for the sake of doing it, even when you know my point is correct. You just do it to provoke a response, it's pathetic. I would put you on ignore, but I can't be arsed.

If anyone would like to address the original post, to get this topic back on track and away from the irritating sidelines... any evidence for religion, please give it.

[Pseudo-Onkelos]

In other words, "Boohoo. I don't liek Boxy 'cause he's always pickin' on me like a scab." I wonder if Tornado_Creator has decided to undo his ignoring me. We'll find out if he replies to me.

[Ethermus Prime]

John Calvin

In other words, "Boohoo. I don't liek Boxy 'cause he's always pickin' on me like a scab." I wonder if Tornado_Creator has decided to undo his ignoring me. We'll find out if he replies to me.

Isn't this basically mental masturbation "I'm right, and I refuse to argue my point...or examine other perspectives. "

[Celeblin Galadeneryn]

Ethermus Prime

John Calvin

In other words, "Boohoo. I don't liek Boxy 'cause he's always pickin' on me like a scab." I wonder if Tornado_Creator has decided to undo his ignoring me. We'll find out if he replies to me.

Isn't this basically mental masturbation "I'm right, and I refuse to argue my point...or examine other perspectives. "

Funnily enough, half the time he accuses the other part of the exact same things he's actually doing.

[Ethermus Prime]

Celeblin Galadeneryn

Ethermus Prime

John Calvin

In other words, "Boohoo. I don't liek Boxy 'cause he's always pickin' on me like a scab." I wonder if Tornado_Creator has decided to undo his ignoring me. We'll find out if he replies to me.

Isn't this basically mental masturbation "I'm right, and I refuse to argue my point...or examine other perspectives. "

Funnily enough, half the time he accuses the other part of the exact same things he's actually doing.

It's like someone Cloned Shifty_Gray...stuck him in a jar full of bees, and shook it.

[Celeblin Galadeneryn]

Ethermus Prime

Celeblin Galadeneryn

Ethermus Prime

John Calvin

In other words, "Boohoo. I don't liek Boxy 'cause he's always pickin' on me like a scab." I wonder if Tornado_Creator has decided to undo his ignoring me. We'll find out if he replies to me.

Isn't this basically mental masturbation "I'm right, and I refuse to argue my point...or examine other perspectives. "

Funnily enough, half the time he accuses the other part of the exact same things he's actually doing.

It's like someone Cloned Shifty_Gray...stuck him in a jar full of bees, and shook it.

oh I remember that guy.

He was more amusing.