|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 7:27 am
"Atheism... the belief that there was nothing and nothing happened to nothing and nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything, and then a bunch of everything magically rearranged itself for no reason whats so ever into self replicating bits which then turn into dinosaur... makes perfect sense"
-someone
i quoted this..... just adding another perspective for better self understanding
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 1:49 pm
HollywoodNobody "Atheism... the belief that there was nothing and nothing happened to nothing and nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything, and then a bunch of everything magically rearranged itself for no reason whats so ever into self replicating bits which then turn into dinosaur... makes perfect sense" -someone i quoted this..... just adding another perspective for better self understanding I love that quote. ^^
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 06, 2010 1:42 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 06, 2010 5:08 am
HollywoodNobody "Atheism... the belief that there was nothing and nothing happened to nothing and nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything, and then a bunch of everything magically rearranged itself for no reason whats so ever into self replicating bits which then turn into dinosaur... makes perfect sense" -someone i quoted this..... just adding another perspective for better self understanding Well, if we're gonna go all straw-man, here's one for ya: Quote: Christianity ... the belief that some cosmic Jewish zombie can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree. Makes perfect sense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 06, 2010 6:49 pm
Artto HollywoodNobody "Atheism... the belief that there was nothing and nothing happened to nothing and nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything, and then a bunch of everything magically rearranged itself for no reason whats so ever into self replicating bits which then turn into dinosaur... makes perfect sense" -someone i quoted this..... just adding another perspective for better self understanding Well, if we're gonna go all straw-man, here's one for ya: Quote: Christianity ... the belief that some cosmic Jewish zombie can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree. Makes perfect sense. Quoted for truth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 07, 2010 12:06 pm
Artto HollywoodNobody "Atheism... the belief that there was nothing and nothing happened to nothing and nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything, and then a bunch of everything magically rearranged itself for no reason whats so ever into self replicating bits which then turn into dinosaur... makes perfect sense" -someone i quoted this..... just adding another perspective for better self understanding Well, if we're gonna go all straw-man, here's one for ya: Quote: Christianity ... the belief that some cosmic Jewish zombie can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree. Makes perfect sense. Oh now that's one I've never seen before. That's a great way of putting it. biggrin
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:22 pm
The problem with all of your quotes is that none of them promote Atheism and all of them look down on anyone who's religious or, strangely enough, specifically Christian. I don't see any blatant, obvious specific regards to the validity or problem with any specific religion, including Judaism, Islam, or Buddhism, other than Christianity. Essentially, most of this is either pointing out religion as a whole or Christianity specifically.
But really, these are not quotes that "Atheists" would love. They are quotes that "Anti-Religious" people would love.
The main problem with all of your quotes is that their too harsh and extremely stereotypical; with most of the stereotypes not being true.
None of these quotes promote Atheism, all they do is down religion.
So no, I do not think that these are quotes that "Atheists" would love.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Nov 07, 2010 9:32 pm
Anyways, if any Atheist truly believes that they are "Scientific" and that Science is the Anti-thesis to religion... (I assume most don't, seeing as how they would have to be REALLY stupid...)
"Schrodinger's Cat" is a commonly excepted theory among scientists. Schrodinger's cat is essentially a theory about probability. The theory is that, if you were to put a Cat in a Box with a vial of poison (which would beyond a shadow of a doubt kill the cat) set to break at a completely random time interval, with no way to find out what time the vial was set to break, and with all other variables excluded (water, food etc.) that a person would never know if the cat was dead unless they opened the box. What it essentially says is that, unless we open the box, we'll never know what inside; unless we open the box and gain definitive proof, we must assume that the Cat is both dead and alive.
So, if you going to try to scientifically analyze the existence of God... you must assume that, being as it may without any of us having even the slightest shred of evidence promoting either the existence or non-existence of God, you must assume that God both exists and doesn't exist.
One might question validity of this statement; how can something both exist and not exist at the same time? My answer to that is; how can something both be right and left at the same time?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 08, 2010 3:25 am
Suicidesoldier#1 "Schrodinger's Cat" is a commonly excepted theory among scientists. Schrodinger's cat is essentially a theory about probability. The theory is that, if you were to put a Cat in a Box with a vial of poison (which would beyond a shadow of a doubt kill the cat) set to break at a completely random time interval, with no way to find out what time the vial was set to break, and with all other variables excluded (water, food etc.) that a person would never know if the cat was dead unless they opened the box. What it essentially says is that, unless we open the box, we'll never know what inside; unless we open the box and gain definitive proof, we must assume that the Cat is both dead and alive. Schrödinger's cat is not a theory, it's a thought experiment used to demonstrate a problem which occurs when you apply quantum mechanics to normal objects. And it's not about probability, it's about the unpredictability of the behaviour of particles on the quantum level. Suicidesoldier#1 So, if you going to try to scientifically analyze the existence of God... you must assume that, being as it may without any of us having even the slightest shred of evidence promoting either the existence or non-existence of God, you must assume that God both exists and doesn't exist. Nope. The default is non-existence. You don't need evidence against something in order to not believe it. You need evidence for it in order to accept it as true. You shouldn't assume something exists because you don't have evidence against it (point demonstrated by Russell's teapot, invisible pink unicorn and flying spaghetti monster - I'm not particularly fond of these, but they demonstrate the point I'm trying to make). P.S.: I posted my latest "atheist quote" just to demonstrate how stupid that "hurrr, atheist believe nothing exploded" quote was.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 08, 2010 7:25 am
Suicidesoldier#1 So, if you going to try to scientifically analyze the existence of God... you must assume that, being as it may without any of us having even the slightest shred of evidence promoting either the existence or non-existence of God, you must assume that God both exists and doesn't exist. That is more of an agnostic sentiment than purely atheist. Many of the 'hard' atheists, those that consider themselves more gnostic than agnostic, are anti-religious. Not all, certainly, but enough to say that they would be atheist quotes. There's also considering many atheists 'converted' due to experiences with religious practicioners, causing them to form bias against religion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 08, 2010 10:25 am
Artto Suicidesoldier#1 "Schrodinger's Cat" is a commonly excepted theory among scientists. Schrodinger's cat is essentially a theory about probability. The theory is that, if you were to put a Cat in a Box with a vial of poison (which would beyond a shadow of a doubt kill the cat) set to break at a completely random time interval, with no way to find out what time the vial was set to break, and with all other variables excluded (water, food etc.) that a person would never know if the cat was dead unless they opened the box. What it essentially says is that, unless we open the box, we'll never know what inside; unless we open the box and gain definitive proof, we must assume that the Cat is both dead and alive. Schrödinger's cat is not a theory, it's a thought experiment used to demonstrate a problem which occurs when you apply quantum mechanics to normal objects. And it's not about probability, it's about the unpredictability of the behaviour of particles on the quantum level. Suicidesoldier#1 So, if you going to try to scientifically analyze the existence of God... you must assume that, being as it may without any of us having even the slightest shred of evidence promoting either the existence or non-existence of God, you must assume that God both exists and doesn't exist. Nope. The default is non-existence. You don't need evidence against something in order to not believe it. You need evidence for it in order to accept it as true. You shouldn't assume something exists because you don't have evidence against it (point demonstrated by Russell's teapot, invisible pink unicorn and flying spaghetti monster - I'm not particularly fond of these, but they demonstrate the point I'm trying to make). P.S.: I posted my latest "atheist quote" just to demonstrate how stupid that "hurrr, atheist believe nothing exploded" quote was.I should throw in that Schrodinger's Cat is also more of a sarcastic jab at trying to take quantum theory too literally- Obviously something is not both dead and alive at the same time, and obviously particles are not in all states at one time, despite the conjectures and theories of literalists. We simply calculate them as though they were because we do not know. Once we observe them, we do not break any sort of waveform and force a reality to be, we simply eliminate the other POSSIBLE courses the particles COULD have taken, but did not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 08, 2010 1:27 pm
Artto Suicidesoldier#1 "Schrodinger's Cat" is a commonly excepted theory among scientists. Schrodinger's cat is essentially a theory about probability. The theory is that, if you were to put a Cat in a Box with a vial of poison (which would beyond a shadow of a doubt kill the cat) set to break at a completely random time interval, with no way to find out what time the vial was set to break, and with all other variables excluded (water, food etc.) that a person would never know if the cat was dead unless they opened the box. What it essentially says is that, unless we open the box, we'll never know what inside; unless we open the box and gain definitive proof, we must assume that the Cat is both dead and alive. Schrödinger's cat is not a theory, it's a thought experiment used to demonstrate a problem which occurs when you apply quantum mechanics to normal objects. And it's not about probability, it's about the unpredictability of the behaviour of particles on the quantum level. Suicidesoldier#1 So, if you going to try to scientifically analyze the existence of God... you must assume that, being as it may without any of us having even the slightest shred of evidence promoting either the existence or non-existence of God, you must assume that God both exists and doesn't exist. Nope. The default is non-existence. You don't need evidence against something in order to not believe it. You need evidence for it in order to accept it as true. You shouldn't assume something exists because you don't have evidence against it (point demonstrated by Russell's teapot, invisible pink unicorn and flying spaghetti monster - I'm not particularly fond of these, but they demonstrate the point I'm trying to make). P.S.: I posted my latest "atheist quote" just to demonstrate how stupid that "hurrr, atheist believe nothing exploded" quote was.First of all, everything is a theory, and I quote "The experiment is a purely theoretical one." Secondly, that's YOUR interpretation of something. The default is NOT non-existence. Without definitive proof, there is no clear or defined answer regardless of what you believe it to be. Logically, you can only assume that there is no way to answer the question. At that moment, you can have no definitive answer. So, for you to BLINDLY believe that something doesn't exist without any proof to support it... your being illogical. Actually, irrational. Your belief in that the default of everything is non-existence is one purely based on faith. And, That's not the issue with Schrodinger's cat; it is the concept that you must consider both options when no conclusive evidence is present.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 08, 2010 1:37 pm
Suicidesoldier#1 First of all, everything is a theory, and I quote "The experiment is a purely theoretical one." I meant the scientific term "theory" which is much different from the colloquial one. Suicidesoldier#1 Secondly, that's YOUR interpretation of something. The default is NOT non-existence. Without definitive proof, there is no clear or defined answer regardless of what you believe it to be. Logically, you can only assume that there is no way to answer the question. At that moment, you can have no definitive answer. I never said there definitly is no god. But at present, no evidence has been provided to me to accept the god claim as true. I'm not claiming any knowledge, I'm merely stating what I believe - there is a big difference between knowledge and belief. Suicidesoldier#1 So, for you to BLINDLY believe that something doesn't exist without any proof to support it... your being illogical. Actually, irrational. Your belief in that the default of everything is non-existence is one purely based on faith. You don't need proof of non-existence - actually you can't prove non-existence without absolute knowledge. See also. Suicidesoldier#1 And, That's not the issue with Schrodinger's cat; it is the concept that you must consider both options when no conclusive evidence is present. I'm sorry, but that's not what Schrödinger's cat is about. But you may interpret it as you wish. Also, I'm not excluding any options - I never said god can't exist, I never even said god doesn't exist. I just say that I don't believe he does.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 08, 2010 1:40 pm
divineseraph Artto Suicidesoldier#1 "Schrodinger's Cat" is a commonly excepted theory among scientists. Schrodinger's cat is essentially a theory about probability. The theory is that, if you were to put a Cat in a Box with a vial of poison (which would beyond a shadow of a doubt kill the cat) set to break at a completely random time interval, with no way to find out what time the vial was set to break, and with all other variables excluded (water, food etc.) that a person would never know if the cat was dead unless they opened the box. What it essentially says is that, unless we open the box, we'll never know what inside; unless we open the box and gain definitive proof, we must assume that the Cat is both dead and alive. Schrödinger's cat is not a theory, it's a thought experiment used to demonstrate a problem which occurs when you apply quantum mechanics to normal objects. And it's not about probability, it's about the unpredictability of the behaviour of particles on the quantum level. Suicidesoldier#1 So, if you going to try to scientifically analyze the existence of God... you must assume that, being as it may without any of us having even the slightest shred of evidence promoting either the existence or non-existence of God, you must assume that God both exists and doesn't exist. Nope. The default is non-existence. You don't need evidence against something in order to not believe it. You need evidence for it in order to accept it as true. You shouldn't assume something exists because you don't have evidence against it (point demonstrated by Russell's teapot, invisible pink unicorn and flying spaghetti monster - I'm not particularly fond of these, but they demonstrate the point I'm trying to make). P.S.: I posted my latest "atheist quote" just to demonstrate how stupid that "hurrr, atheist believe nothing exploded" quote was.I should throw in that Schrodinger's Cat is also more of a sarcastic jab at trying to take quantum theory too literally- Obviously something is not both dead and alive at the same time, and obviously particles are not in all states at one time, despite the conjectures and theories of literalists. We simply calculate them as though they were because we do not know. Once we observe them, we do not break any sort of waveform and force a reality to be, we simply eliminate the other POSSIBLE courses the particles COULD have taken, but did not. I'm aware that it's either one or the other. But the concept is that you must conclude that both answers could both be the answer and not the answer. As well, all organic creatures as we know them are typically- if not always- living and dieing at the same time; and what if something dies? Can't something be both alive and dead at the same time? At the exact moment of death, is something alive or dead? Obviously something dead can't die; as by definition. And obviously, something living isn't dead. But it can't be alive; becuase it just died. The idea that it must be "either living or dead" is a purely black and white manner of thinking, and hardly anything in this Universe is "black and white" with a straight up 100% clear defined answer. Obviously, something that's just died is neither dead nor alive. No matter which direction you take, you will always be wrong. This is becuase dieing is on a totally different level of reality, an action that occurs within a very instant, an incalculably short amount of time; a time called the present. At least grammatically. But the primary point of all this is that you cannot definitively define a set group of objectives with extraordinarily conclusive proof, and thus there is no direct answer to this enigma. Schrodinger's cat is merely a generally accepted "thought experiment" in science. If your really going to objectively try to define the existence of God scientifically, you must compare the existence of God to a known scientific standard of testing; in this case, a thought experiment of this time would be relatively similar to the concept of "Schrodinger's Cat".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Nov 08, 2010 1:52 pm
Artto Suicidesoldier#1 First of all, everything is a theory, and I quote "The experiment is a purely theoretical one." I meant the scientific term "theory" which is much different from the colloquial one. Suicidesoldier#1 Secondly, that's YOUR interpretation of something. The default is NOT non-existence. Without definitive proof, there is no clear or defined answer regardless of what you believe it to be. Logically, you can only assume that there is no way to answer the question. At that moment, you can have no definitive answer. I never said there definitly is no god. But at present, no evidence has been provided to me to accept the god claim as true. I'm not claiming any knowledge, I'm merely stating what I believe - there is a big difference between knowledge and belief. Suicidesoldier#1 So, for you to BLINDLY believe that something doesn't exist without any proof to support it... your being illogical. Actually, irrational. Your belief in that the default of everything is non-existence is one purely based on faith. You don't need proof of non-existence - actually you can't prove non-existence without absolute knowledge. See also. Suicidesoldier#1 And, That's not the issue with Schrodinger's cat; it is the concept that you must consider both options when no conclusive evidence is present. I'm sorry, but that's not what Schrödinger's cat is about. But you may interpret it as you wish. Also, I'm not excluding any options - I never said god can't exist, I never even said god doesn't exist. I just say that I don't believe he does. That's not true at all O_o Technically, there is no real interpretation of the thought experiment "Schrodinger's Cat". There are actually many interpretations; several that are well known. Examples would be the Copenhagen, Hugh Everett, and "Relational". Quote: You don't need proof of non-existence - actually you can't prove non-existence without absolute knowledge. This is simply pure opinion. Absolute knowledge exists, as everything that exists, exists. YOU may never attain absolute knowledge of everything, but claiming that you don't need "proof on non-existence" to disprove something is ludicrous. It may still exist regardless of whether you know anything about it at all. Just becuase you don't know cats exist doesn't mean they don't, irrelevant of how much you know or don't know. A lack of Evidence, is not evidence, for a lack there of.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
