Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Atheists fed up? Believe it! - Guest Voices - The Washington Post


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Atheists fed up? Believe it! - Guest Voices - The Washington Post Page: <<   < prev  10 11 [12] 13 14   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Atheists fed up? Believe it! - Guest Voices - The W... - 6/21/2011 1:16:33 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

If there is data that supports your claims present it.

You're the data.

So you're admitting you cannot do science if you try to take into account the possibility of supernatural action. Why didn't you make that admission two pages ago and save me all this time and effort?

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 221
RE: Atheists fed up? Believe it! - Guest Voices - The W... - 6/21/2011 1:37:55 PM   
Hippiekinkster


Posts: 5512
Joined: 11/20/2007
From: Liechtenstein
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

If there is data that supports your claims present it.

You're the data.

So you're admitting you cannot do science if you try to take into account the possibility of supernatural action. Why didn't you make that admission two pages ago and save me all this time and effort?

And forego the opportunity to show all and sundry how clever his snark is? Really, Ken...

_____________________________

"We are convinced that freedom w/o Socialism is privilege and injustice, and that Socialism w/o freedom is slavery and brutality." Bakunin

“Nothing we do, however virtuous, can be accomplished alone; therefore we are saved by love.” Reinhold Ne

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 222
RE: Atheists fed up? Believe it! - Guest Voices - The W... - 6/21/2011 1:52:54 PM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

So you're admitting you cannot do science if you try to take into account the possibility of supernatural action. Why didn't you make that admission two pages ago and save me all this time and effort?

I'm sorry, Ken. I didn't realize your English comprehension was so limited. Let's play ring around the rosie, okay?

The natural sciences seek to understand the physical causes of physical effects and the laws by which they proceed. They do not inherently assume that the objective publicly verifiable world of experience is all there is, and they most certainly are not in the business of promulgating the metaphysical doctrines of a cranky religious cult that flatly declares that that's all there is.

You objected to this because, you said, then one would "never know what caused something because it could always have been an angel or demon acting," which is pretty much the same old mantra you've been chanting all along. But that's just fucking mindless ridicule, not an argument. Nobody is suggesting that we should assume the universe to be infested with discarnate beings who like to screw around. The issue is one of imposing limitations on where we will allow the data to lead us.

That is to say, the data. Or to repeat myself, the fucking data. Science is about data.

K.



< Message edited by Kirata -- 6/21/2011 1:58:24 PM >

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 223
RE: Atheists fed up? Believe it! - Guest Voices - The W... - 6/21/2011 2:00:12 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

So you're admitting you cannot do science if you try to take into account the possibility of supernatural action. Why didn't you make that admission two pages ago and save me all this time and effort?

I'm sorry, Ken. I didn't realize your English comprehension was so limited. Let's play ring around the rosie, okay?

The natural sciences seek to understand the physical causes of physical effects and the laws by which they proceed. They do not inherently assume that the objective publicly verifiable world of experience is all there is, and they most certainly are not in the business of promulgating the metaphysical doctrines of a cranky religious cult that flatly declares that that's all there is.

You objected to this because, you said, then one would "never know what caused something becaue it could always have been an angel or demon acting," which is pretty much the same old mantra you've been chanting all along. But that's just fucking mindless ridicule, not an argument. Nobody is suggesting that we should assume the universe to be infested with discarnate beings who like to screw around. The issue is one of imposing limitations on where we will allow the data to lead us.

That is to say, the data. Or to repeat myself, the fucking data. Science is about data.

Once again, if you do not exclude the supernatural no observation means anything. So also again what data could lead to a supernatural explanation?

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 224
RE: Atheists fed up? Believe it! - Guest Voices - The W... - 6/21/2011 2:06:43 PM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

An atheist asserts that he does not believe in the existence of the supernatural. A materialist asserts that he does not believe in anything beyond the physical world. It is two ways to say the exact same thing.

Does the normal English usage of words mean anything to you?

Atheism: Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.

Materialism: In philosophy, the theory of materialism holds that the only thing that exists is matter

Ferfucksake, "the exact same thing" my ass.

K.

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 225
RE: Atheists fed up? Believe it! - Guest Voices - The W... - 6/21/2011 2:19:05 PM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Once again, if you do not exclude the supernatural no observation means anything.

Do you get this nonsense from some little wallet card you carry around or something?

The word "supernatural" only has meaning in reference to a definition of what is deemed to be "natural." And from a scientific point of view, it is a term that is worse than useless. It's pejorative. Observations that do not fit within our current paradigm are the most meaningful and exciting observations of all. Those are the ones we learn the most from, the ones that lead us to revise and refine our paradigms and make scientific progress.

You just don't want to do real science. You'd rather be a prelate in a fucking church.

K.

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 226
RE: Atheists fed up? Believe it! - Guest Voices - The W... - 6/21/2011 2:48:36 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Once again, if you do not exclude the supernatural no observation means anything.

Do you get this nonsense from some little wallet card you carry around or something?

The word "supernatural" only has meaning in reference to a definition of what is deemed to be "natural." And from a scientific point of view, it is a term that is worse than useless. It's pejorative. Observations that do not fit within our current paradigm are the most meaningful and exciting observations of all. Those are the ones we learn the most from, the ones that lead us to revise and refine our paradigms and make scientific progress.

You just don't want to do real science. You'd rather be a prelate in a fucking church.

K.


You are fucking clueless.

If the data doesn't fit existing theory that is exciting if we assume that there is a natural explanation. However if we assume supernatural action then maybe a spook messed with the data and maybe next time it won't. Without the underlying assumption that we can find a natural cause for every observation science cannot progress.

But you're the one claiming supernatural explanations should be considered so I'll repeat the question, how precisely do you interpret data under such a scenario?

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 227
RE: Atheists fed up? Believe it! - Guest Voices - The W... - 6/21/2011 2:50:40 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

An atheist asserts that he does not believe in the existence of the supernatural. A materialist asserts that he does not believe in anything beyond the physical world. It is two ways to say the exact same thing.

Does the normal English usage of words mean anything to you?

Atheism: Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.

Materialism: In philosophy, the theory of materialism holds that the only thing that exists is matter

Ferfucksake, "the exact same thing" my ass.

K.


You are either illiterate or being intentionally obtuse.

Atheism denies the existence of all deities as well as all other supernatural "entities." IOW the world we see is all there is. Materialism says the physical world is all there is. You seem to be stuck on the idea that some atheist somewhere doesn't believe in the judeo christian deity but does believe in ghosts or some other nonsense. I've never met such a person and doubt such a person exists.

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 228
RE: Atheists fed up? Believe it! - Guest Voices - The W... - 6/21/2011 5:11:41 PM   
eihwaz


Posts: 367
Joined: 10/6/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
Once again, if you do not exclude the supernatural no observation means anything.

... The word "supernatural" only has meaning in reference to a definition of what is deemed to be "natural." And from a scientific point of view, it is a term that is worse than useless. It's pejorative. Observations that do not fit within our current paradigm are the most meaningful and exciting observations of all. Those are the ones we learn the most from, the ones that lead us to revise and refine our paradigms and make scientific progress.

Agreed.  The natural/supernatural distinction is artificial and doesn't exist in science which is much more concerned with distinguishing the falsifiable from the non-falsifiable (nicely and succinctly explained in this post).  What is now considered supernatural may turn out to be natural after all.  (I'm trained in biological science and worked for some years in an academic research lab.  I don't recall the word supernatural ever being mentioned.  But we worried a lot over whether a particular hypothesis was falsifiable using the investigative techniques available to us.)

< Message edited by eihwaz -- 6/21/2011 5:38:31 PM >

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 229
RE: Atheists fed up? Believe it! - Guest Voices - The W... - 6/21/2011 5:37:44 PM   
eihwaz


Posts: 367
Joined: 10/6/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
IOW the world we see is all there is.

This sounds more like empiricism.

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 230
RE: Atheists fed up? Believe it! - Guest Voices - The W... - 6/21/2011 5:42:15 PM   
tweakabelle


Posts: 7522
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen




For the materialist consciousness is not something seperate from the brain. It is an expression of the functioning of the physical brain.


Sorry DK, any attempt to explain the expression and/or function of consciousness that omits reference to culture is inadequate IMHO. Descartes was wrong, plain and simple.

One unavoidable implication of this is that it poses serious challenges to any claim to 'scientific objectivity' or 'scientific detachment'.

No. The connection between the brain and consciousness is proven by the simple fact that physical changes to the brain changes consciousness.

D'oh! So what?

Please raise your points above the level of mundane thx

Why go beyond the most basic level when there is nothing left to explain. Consciousness is the result of physical processes of the human brain. Until you can show that there is more to it, and you can't, the rest is woo.


Sorry DK I wasn't talking about that. I was talking about "the expression and/or function of consciousness". I've bolded the words above for you as you obviously missed them first time around.

It does help to respond to things that people actually write. A good way of ensuring this is to look at the words actually written.

I might add that for me, the interesting and significant aspects of consciousness are not its (possible) physical constitution, rather things like its expression, articulation, meaning and how it's experienced/interpreted by the subject. In much the same way as the content and meaning of thought interests me, not the physical processes that might be involved in manufacturing thoughts. That's just me of course.

The relevance of such processes seems to me to be at best limited. Focussing exclusively on the physiology of consciousness and thought bolsters an epistemological space that enables, for example, determinism and similar follies. But please don't let me discourage you, feel free to pursue them to your heart's content.

< Message edited by tweakabelle -- 6/21/2011 5:54:06 PM >


_____________________________



(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 231
RE: Atheists fed up? Believe it! - Guest Voices - The W... - 6/21/2011 6:38:07 PM   
eihwaz


Posts: 367
Joined: 10/6/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: rawtape
...that there is no particular reason to "privilege" a thesis about god any more than all the other concepts whose validity or lack thereof is currently not provable.

One can conceive of an unlimited number of such non-verifiable concepts, e.g. are there undetectable miniature pink unicorns prancing about everyone's head, are invisible fairies spitting on my food, am I part of a simulation, etc. However, most people don't waste their time thinking about these concepts, each as untestable as the god thesis; instead, they simply dismiss these concepts out of hand. Why then, should the god thesis be privileged and treated differently?

quote:

ORIGINAL: eihwaz
And in what knowledge domain is the god thesis "privileged?"

quote:

ORIGINAL: rawtape
Essentially any knowledge domain in which people concern themselves with the god thesis without paying the same attention to similar concepts whose existence or nonexistence also cannot be verified. Er, did you really find my previous post that abstruse, or are you simply trying to score rhetorical points?

Well, a little.  But I actually am curious about which domains (examples) you're referring to.  For example, the existence of God is axiomatic for theology by definition.  Historically, organized religion claimed as under its purview knowledge now considered  scientific, but that's no longer true in much of the world.  There are reactionary theocrats hoping to reassert religious authority over scientific knowledge (not to mention government); they want to restore religious belief to the public sphere.  So far they haven't succeeded -- thankfully.  In these examples, the 'god thesis' is privileged.  But I can't think of others.

Maybe the primary reason the 'god thesis' is privileged is that it provides meaning while a 'spaghetti monster thesis' doesn't so much.  That's probably generally true, that propositions that yield meaning are privileged over those that don't.

quote:

ORIGINAL: eihwaz ...And what does it matter to you what someone's personal religious (or nonreligious) beliefs are?

quote:

ORIGINAL: rawtape
None whatsoever unless they infringe on my rights or those of other folks. Were you expecting something else?

Yes, possibly.  Certain materialist atheists on these boards presumptuously demand of theists evidence for their beliefs.  My personal beliefs really are nobody's business and I really needn't have to prove them to anyone.  I incorrectly assumed that you might have a similar attitude which, based on your subsequent posts, you clearly don't.  I apologize for the prickliness of my question.



< Message edited by eihwaz -- 6/21/2011 6:40:36 PM >

(in reply to rawtape)
Profile   Post #: 232
RE: Atheists fed up? Believe it! - Guest Voices - The W... - 6/21/2011 6:49:15 PM   
eihwaz


Posts: 367
Joined: 10/6/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: rawtape
quote:

ORIGINAL: eihwaz
quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59
Science doesn`t start with faith.

Science is based on the unprovable assumption that the cosmos is ordered rationally according to universal, discoverable laws.  So you could say that science does start with faith.

Now, I might be mistaken, but it appears to me that eihwaz's goal in his/her post was to equate the basis of science with that of religion -- on blind faith. 

Faith in the sense of consciously choosing to believe, even if provisionally, an unproven (and perhaps unprovable) assumption.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rawtape
(Note that the god thesis is not falsifiable either, and thus most of us consider it outside the purview of science).

Quite so.  Thank you.

(in reply to rawtape)
Profile   Post #: 233
RE: Atheists fed up? Believe it! - Guest Voices - The W... - 6/21/2011 7:22:59 PM   
Kirata


Posts: 15477
Joined: 2/11/2006
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

You seem to be stuck on the idea...

You seem to be stuck on the idea that you're entitled to make up definitions to suit your purposes. And don't get we wrong, I do appreciate the advantages of such a view. It allows you to respond to things people didn't say, and claim that they did, and also to claim that the things you say make sense, when really they don't.

But all the same... I really do wish you'd knock it the fuck off, at least when you're not talking to yourself.

K.

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 234
RE: Atheists fed up? Believe it! - Guest Voices - The W... - 6/21/2011 7:43:01 PM   
submittous


Posts: 345
Joined: 6/12/2004
Status: offline
I'm not sure the question of atheists being discriminated against has been settled here or not... but we have openly gay congressmen, openly Muslim congressmen (even after 911) but no openly atheist congressmen, senators or ever any Presidents.

I am an atheist because I don't see any need to believe in a 'god' or creator. I can see plausible explanations for everything without having to go to 'super natural' mystic beliefs to explain things. For me, believing in extraordinary things like a super being or an immortal creator or a 'personal god' would require some extraordinary proof of it's existence. Absent any proof and with science providing possible explanations the rational belief is in there being no god(s).

_____________________________

"If you are lucky enough to find a way of life you love, you have to find the courage to live it." John Irving

(in reply to juliaoceania)
Profile   Post #: 235
RE: Atheists fed up? Believe it! - Guest Voices - The W... - 6/21/2011 8:01:44 PM   
tweakabelle


Posts: 7522
Joined: 10/16/2007
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: eihwaz

quote:

ORIGINAL: rawtape
quote:

ORIGINAL: eihwaz
quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59
Science doesn`t start with faith.

Science is based on the unprovable assumption that the cosmos is ordered rationally according to universal, discoverable laws.  So you could say that science does start with faith.

Now, I might be mistaken, but it appears to me that eihwaz's goal in his/her post was to equate the basis of science with that of religion -- on blind faith. 

Faith in the sense of consciously choosing to believe, even if provisionally, an unproven (and perhaps unprovable) assumption.



There a a number of crossovers/contrasts between science and religion, depending on the level of analysis/perspective adopted . This is one of more fundamental.

At an operative level in society today - outside the research institute, outside the labs, the academy, in society in general - science acts as truth production system. Science is seen as the determiner of Truth. So, in this sense, one could say that science can be seen as a secular religion. Scientists can be seen as the priests of that religion.

There is an awful lot more invovled of course. However, if this view has merit, then it makes sense, at this level, to view the science vs religion clash as a contest over the power to pronounce and define the truths that shape and regulate the social sphere.

< Message edited by tweakabelle -- 6/21/2011 8:07:55 PM >


_____________________________



(in reply to eihwaz)
Profile   Post #: 236
RE: Atheists fed up? Believe it! - Guest Voices - The W... - 6/21/2011 8:12:34 PM   
juliaoceania


Posts: 21383
Joined: 4/19/2006
From: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Status: offline
quote:

There a a number of crossovers/contrasts between science and religion, depending on the level of analysis/perspective adopted . This is one of more fundamental.

At an operative level in society today - outside the research institute, outside the labs, the academy, in society in general - science acts as truth production system. Science is seen as the determinant of Truth. So, in this sense, one could say that science can be seen as a secular religion.

If this view has merit, then it makes sense, at this level, to view the science vs religion clash as a contest over the power to pronounce and define the truths that shape and regulate the social sphere.


Yes, so very very true.

If you look at Michel Foucault's theories about how our modern society controls human beings on the body level, it can be demonstrated how science works as a world view, and not just a method for a testing hypothesis.

In our modern world we use "science" as a control over bodies, and he demonstrated how this is so in an analysis of how we treat mentally ill people, and how this has changed based upon how society itself has changed.

We have to smell good, wash our hands, keep our food in certain ways to keep "clean". I am not saying that this is a bad thing, or has no merit, but if you look at how overboard some people are about these things, they can become ritualized ways of controlling the human body... all based on science.

< Message edited by juliaoceania -- 6/21/2011 8:13:19 PM >


_____________________________

Once you label me, you negate me ~ Soren Kierkegaard

Reality has a well known Liberal Bias ~ Stephen Colbert

Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt

(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 237
RE: Atheists fed up? Believe it! - Guest Voices - The W... - 6/21/2011 8:23:57 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
Sorry DK I wasn't talking about that. I was talking about "the expression and/or function of consciousness". I've bolded the words above for you as you obviously missed them first time around.

It does help to respond to things that people actually write. A good way of ensuring this is to look at the words actually written.

I might add that for me, the interesting and significant aspects of consciousness are not its (possible) physical constitution, rather things like its expression, articulation, meaning and how it's experienced/interpreted by the subject. In much the same way as the content and meaning of thought interests me, not the physical processes that might be involved in manufacturing thoughts. That's just me of course.

The relevance of such processes seems to me to be at best limited. Focussing exclusively on the physiology of consciousness and thought bolsters an epistemological space that enables, for example, determinism and similar follies. But please don't let me discourage you, feel free to pursue them to your heart's content.

And I meant that "the expression and/or function of consciousness" is strictly a matter of the physical action of the brain, nothing more.

You seem to be arguing that there is some "higher" plane or other claptrap involved. There isn't. We may still be in the early stages of understanding the brain but we can already use various interventions to change the functioning of what you call consciousness. To argue otherwise is to ignore the evidence.

(in reply to tweakabelle)
Profile   Post #: 238
RE: Atheists fed up? Believe it! - Guest Voices - The W... - 6/21/2011 8:38:17 PM   
juliaoceania


Posts: 21383
Joined: 4/19/2006
From: Somewhere Over the Rainbow
Status: offline
quote:

You seem to be arguing that there is some "higher" plane or other claptrap involved. There isn't. We may still be in the early stages of understanding the brain but we can already use various interventions to change the functioning of what you call consciousness. To argue otherwise is to ignore the evidence.


Altering human consciousness does not mean it does not exist... in other words, brain function and consciousness being related to each other does not mean anything but that the human brain is a structure that houses the observer.

So what is an observer, is it consciousness? Who can be considered a conscious observer? None of these things have been answered yet. I have a hard time thinking that you are nearly as smart as a quantum physics theorists, yet you are so very definite in your assertions, which are really just opinions based upon what could very soon be an out-of-date model of the universe.


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/02/980227055013.htm



In a study reported in the February 26 issue of Nature (Vol. 391, pp. 871-874), researchers at the Weizmann Institute of Science have now conducted a highly controlled experiment demonstrating how a beam of electrons is affected by the act of being observed. The experiment revealed that the greater the amount of "watching," the greater the observer's influence on what actually takes place.
The research team headed by Prof. Mordehai Heiblum, included Ph.D. student Eyal Buks, Dr. Ralph Schuster, Dr. Diana Mahalu and Dr. Vladimir Umansky. The scientists, members of the Condensed Matter Physics Department, work at the Institute's Joseph H. and Belle R. Braun Center for Submicron Research.
When a quantum "observer" is watching Quantum mechanics states that particles can also behave as waves. This can be true for electrons at the submicron level, i.e., at distances measuring less than one micron, or one thousandth of a millimeter. When behaving as waves, they can simultaneously pass through several openings in a barrier and then meet again at the other side of the barrier. This "meeting" is known as interference.

Strange as it may sound, interference can only occur when no one is watching. Once an observer begins to watch the particles going through the openings, the picture changes dramatically: if a particle can be seen going through one opening, then it's clear it didn't go through another. In other words, when under observation, electrons are being "forced" to behave like particles and not like waves. Thus the mere act of observation affects the experimental findings.

To demonstrate this, Weizmann Institute researchers built a tiny device measuring less than one micron in size, which had a barrier with two openings. They then sent a current of electrons towards the barrier. The "observer" in this experiment wasn't human. Institute scientists used for this purpose a tiny but sophisticated electronic detector that can spot passing electrons. The quantum "observer's" capacity to detect electrons could be altered by changing its electrical conductivity, or the strength of the current passing through it




_____________________________

Once you label me, you negate me ~ Soren Kierkegaard

Reality has a well known Liberal Bias ~ Stephen Colbert

Great minds discuss ideas; Average minds discuss events; Small minds discuss people. Eleanor Roosevelt

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 239
RE: Atheists fed up? Believe it! - Guest Voices - The W... - 6/21/2011 8:42:01 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

You seem to be stuck on the idea...

You seem to be stuck on the idea that you're entitled to make up definitions to suit your purposes. And don't get we wrong, I do appreciate the advantages of such a view. It allows you to respond to things people didn't say, and claim that they did, and also to claim that the things you say make sense, when really they don't.

But all the same... I really do wish you'd knock it the fuck off, at least when you're not talking to yourself.

K.


I guess we have now reached the part where you've realized you cannot support the bullshit you were tossing around and now have retreated to ad hominen. You will of course continue to make grandiose claims with no evidence and claim that the nonexistent supernatural must be accounted for by science despite the fact that I, and others, have shown you that is simply impossible or you will continue backpedaling and trying to pretend you didn't write this
quote:

The natural sciences seek to understand the physical causes of physical effects and the laws by which they proceed. They do not inherently assume that the objective publicly verifiable world of experience is all there is

and this
quote:

Real science follows the data. It does not exclude possibilities on the basis of quirky doctrinal beliefs about what is "natural"

You seem to have thought your tap dance around was going to be effective but you didn't fool anyone. I called you on it and you at least seem to know you no longer have a leg to stand on so its insult time.

Next time when you feel the need to try and defend your faith why not try taking a well thought out position and defending it? This bullshit of dancing around trying to avoid making any simple statements and then attacking others for "misunderstanding" you has gotten boring.

(in reply to Kirata)
Profile   Post #: 240
Page:   <<   < prev  10 11 [12] 13 14   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Atheists fed up? Believe it! - Guest Voices - The Washington Post Page: <<   < prev  10 11 [12] 13 14   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.109