Bacteriologist:


Or you're simply pulling horseshit from your ass and making another thoughtless generalisation?

Like a lot of theist would do, I daresay.

budaatum:

Take the idea called the big bang. An atheist would claim no god created the heavens and the earth because she sees no evidence for such a claim, then he insists there was a bang that was big. Is that not hypocrisy? Does the atheist really know there was a bang and that it was big some billion years ago? Does the hypocritical atheist not see that she quotes from her own 'Bible' (canon, knowledge, choose to believes) in making such an ignorant claim?

A non-hypocritical atheist would simply state that the evidence suggests that the earth is billion years old and all of the known verifiable and somewhat valid evidence is less that 20,000 years old. Stating how a billions of years old universe came into existence is speculation no different to God done it in 6 days, and if the atheist is condemning the 6 day theory with a bang that was big, I am a hypocrite atheist!!

I'm aware some atheists can be hypocrites. I didn't phrase the question properly the first time. I, however don't think there is hypocrisy in the idea of "atheism". Correct me if i'm wrong.

XxSabrinaxX:

I'm aware some atheists can be hypocrites. I didn't phrase the question properly the first time. I, however don't think there is hypocrisy in the idea of "atheism". Correct me if i'm wrong.

I like that! The idea of "atheism". Which idea exactly? Mine? Vaxx's? Op's? Your's? Tintingz? Or have you missed how we, atheists all, can't agree on what the 'idea of atheism' is on this one thread?

Hypocrisy is a human flaw found in all human beings. In order not to commit that flaw, one must always be on guard least it creeps in while one ain't on guard. And even then, out of sheer ignorance alone, one can be guilty of it.

I'll mention you to one of my guilty as charged posts when I find one.

budaatum:

I like that! The idea of "atheism". Which idea exactly? Mine? Vaxx's? Op's? Your's? Tintingz? Or have you missed how we, atheists all, can't agree on what the 'idea of atheism' is on this one thread?

Hypocrisy is a human flaw found in all human beings. In order not to commit that flaw, one must always be on guard least it creeps in while one ain't on guard. And even then, out of sheer ignorance alone, one can be guilty of it.

I'll mention you to one of my guilty as charged posts when I find one.

Atheists have one thing in common: lack of belief in a deity. I guess that's what I meant by "the idea of atheism".
As for the hypocrisy part, i'm equally aware that it affects everyone. No human is infallible.

XxSabrinaxX:

Oh. Sorry to hear that, TATIME

That is why when i now see atheists behaving like this churchgoers i'm puzzled, because i expected atheists to consider others as intelligent creatures having rights to whatever they CHOOSE as long as their beliefs is not affecting you in anyway. Though somehow the beliefs and ideas of those around you will affect you either positively or otherwise but you can set the limit to which such could hinder your progress and welfare.
I respected atheists for trying to make the best use of their brains but tolerance shouldn't be a one way thing,we should all accept that each and everyone has the right to choose what they want to do with their life whether subjecting themselves to some religious doctrines considered as stupid or totally independent!

TATIME:
That is why when i now see atheists behaving like this churchgoers i'm puzzled, because i expected atheists to consider others as intelligent creatures having rights to whatever they CHOOSE as long as their beliefs is not affecting you in anyway. Though somehow the beliefs and ideas of those around you will affect you either positively or otherwise but you can set the limit to which such could hinder your progress and welfare.
I respected atheists for trying to make the best use of their brains but tolerance shouldn't be a one way thing,we should all accept that each and everyone has the right to choose what they want to do with their life whether subjecting themselves to some religious doctrines considered as stupid or totally independent!

Atheists are not robots. Just as there is dogma and intolerance among theists, it exists in the atheist camp as well. After all, we're all human beings.

XxSabrinaxX:

Atheists are not robots. Just as there is dogma and intolerance among theists, it exists in the atheist camp as well. After all, we're all human beings.

That's what TRUE Christians are taught "we're all humans" so we MUST respect each and everyone no matter their choice as long as they don't infringe on our right! Homosexuals, Bestialists, Lesbians, Pedophiles, Smokers, Drunkards, Adulterers, Fornicators and so on should be respected as people having the right to choose how to live their lives! Christians only need to keep a distance from them so as not to be affected but discuss tactfully with them when opportunity arises at workplace,malls,buses,neighbourhood and so on.
We must not PESTER or look down on them!

XxSabrinaxX:

Atheists have one thing in common: lack of belief in a deity. I guess that's what I meant by "the idea of atheism".

Then I would have to go find a ism that better defines me because I do not have a "lack of belief in a deity" just as I don't have a wishy washy lack of belief that there isn't a million pounds sitting in my bank account. I get off my ass, go to the bank and ask so I can know instead of believing or not believing like some theists do, and which atheists abhor them for doing.

budaatum:

Then I would have to go find a ism that better defines me because I do not have a "lack of belief in a deity" just as I don't have a wishy washy lack of belief that there isn't a million pounds sitting in my bank account. I get off my ass, go to the bank and ask so I can know instead of believing or not believing like some theists do, and which atheists abhor them for doing.

If there is no way to objectively prove the supernatural, what is wrong with witholding belief in a deity? Besides, which worldview do you subscribe to? There's nothing wrong with believing in something. But if you're going to impose your beliefs on others in the form of proselytizing and other ways, we're going to ask for evidence.

XxSabrinaxX:

If there is no way to objectively prove the supernatural, what is wrong with witholding belief in a deity? Besides, which worldview do you subscribe to? There's nothing wrong with believing in something. But if you're going to impose your beliefs on others in the form of proselytizing and other ways, we're going to ask for evidence.

Xx, please! Where do you get the idea that there is "no way to objectively prove the supernatural", or disprove it, to be more accurate? The supernatural is always subjective is the first alarm bell you should hear! Or are you unaware that beliefs are subjective by the nature of them being held by a subject?

The supernatural can easily be proven to objectively be non-existent. Unfortunately, subjective prone subjects tend not to have any of it. It is for this reason that you argue with theists. You're both banging your subjectivity against one anothers.

budaatum:

Xx, please! Where do you get the idea that there is "no way to objectively prove the supernatural", or disprove it, to be more accurate?

Check this out...

Supernatural means outside of nature. Nature would be the entire universe, from one end to the other. Everything in this universe is natural, and follows the laws of science as we know them. Everyday we learn a little bit more about the laws of nature, and we find that there is less and less of this supernatural stuff that is mostly born of superstition.

Nothing can exist outside of nature. Anything science discovers will be judged, valued, and controlled by the natural laws of the universe. Therefore, the supernatural cannot "exist".

Even hallucinations are natural, as they are a product of the natural operations of the human mind, because even a diseased or disordered mind is a natural (if tragic occurrence). There are a lot of people who have hallucinations and claim they are proof of the supernatural. I’ve had some pretty incredible hallucinations that science has yet to explain, but I don’t automatically assume they are proof of the supernatural. As a wise man once said, “When you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras.”

XxSabrinaxX:

Check this out...

Supernatural means outside of nature. Nature would be the entire universe, from one end to the other. Everything in this universe is natural, and follows the laws of science as we know them. Everyday we learn a little bit more about the laws of nature, and we find that there is less and less of this supernatural stuff that is mostly born of superstition.

Nothing can exist outside of nature. Anything science discovers will be judged, valued, and controlled by the natural laws of the universe. Therefore, the supernatural cannot "exist".

Even hallucinations are natural, as they are a product of the natural operations of the human mind, because even a diseased or disordered mind is a natural (if tragic occurrence). There are a lot of people who have hallucinations and claim they are proof of the supernatural. I’ve had some pretty incredible hallucinations that science has yet to explain, but I don’t automatically assume they are proof of the supernatural. As a wise man once said, “When you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras.”

So, why claim one can not know the hoofbeats are horses and not zebras?

I can subjectively claim they are elephant hoofbeats even, but I should not expect objective individuals to agree with me unless I show them evidence for my claim, or they are the sort who have faith in my saying so without any evidence. When such crap is pulled on you here Sab, I've seen how you react!

budaatum:

So, why claim one can not know the hoofbeats are horses and not zebras?

I can subjectively claim they are elephant hoofbeats even, but I should not expect objective individuals to agree with me unless I show them evidence for my claim, or they are the sort who have faith in my saying so without any evidence. When such crap is pulled on you here Sab, I've seen how you react!

Budaatum, this is the main difference between atheism and theism.

Theism requires faith as a principle element. Faith is basically a recognition that absolute certainty is not possible, but belief is still the choice to be made anyway. That’s fair enough for people for whom this has meaning and importance, but it definitely fails at least slightly on the “evidence first, belief second” standard that usually is a hallmark of logic.

Atheism is the position with respect to the existence of gods that “I’m not sure that’s right — can you give me something more concrete to justify my belief? No? Well then I’m ok for now, thanks”. Again, based on an evidentiary standard, this more closely adheres to logical deduction, though since there is no deduction being done, as above I’m not sure ‘logic’ is quite the appropriate word. Basically, theism cannot possibly be MORE logical, but I don’t think that atheism requires even employing logic because the basic premise of “here’s some evidence — Go!” never actually takes place, and thus the logical process is not necessary.

Now personally, I couldn't care less what worldview anyone has. But the main reason why it seems atheists "bully" theists is because they try to push their beliefs on others. And in order to do this, they use politics, schools, the media, just to name a few. Take the U.S for example. Bear in mind that the U.S has a strict separation of church and state. Even then, they try to control everything.

Its pretty damn simple, if you're going to be so "in your face!!" with your beliefs at the expense of other people's rights, the burden of proof is on you to convince us that your beliefs are actual facts.

XxSabrinaxX:

If i may ask, budaatum, what's your point? That atheism is illogical?

Lol! Lol again!

A favorite word to describe atheists is "fool", which leads me to conclude that atheism is illogical to those it is illogical to. And there are many that atheism is illogical to. As for me, however, creating figments in my imagination and claiming they exist and are real would serve me better if it worked with the imaginary million pounds in my bank account with which I'd love to buy a real spanking brand new red Ferrari! I'm yet to find a Ferrari salesperson who would theistically believe me though. I'm beginning to think they must all be foolish atheists, unfortunately.

Atheism tends to have a relationship with the scientific method, by which I simply mean, the "use of the senses to properly gather information about structures and/or process". If it's a horse's hoofbeats, and I think it is those of a zebra, you can see how I could be influenced to perhaps kill and eat it instead of keeping it to help me till the land and provide even more food to put on it's back to take to the market to sell for more money to feed me, my family, and my next door neighbour. Imagine the look on my stupid face after killing the zebra and it turns out to be a horse just because I chose to believe some stupidness I cooked up in my head!

budaatum:

Atheism tends to have a relationship with the scientific method, by which I simply mean, the "use of the senses to properly gather information about structures and/or process".

And what is wrong with the scientific method?
First the scientific method is a method of inquiry. It isn't a set of beliefs. It is a set of processes by which we can better objectively know things. It is a very rigorous method and more subjective approaches to acquiring knowledge are routinely rejected by people utilizing the scientific method. This is often very annoying to people who don't want their beliefs to be scrutinzed objectively. However, because the rigorous use of the processes that make up the scientific method are so effective as a tool for learning objective knowledge, most scientifically minded people refuse to loosen their standards of evidence and logic. In that sense this strict adherence to rules of logic and standards of evidence can be considered a bit dogmatic, but it isn't really. It is simply adherence to a process that is known to work better then any other method devised for us to discern as best as possible what might be objectively true.

Second, no scientist every claims to know anything beyond a doubt. All they ever say is that there is a higher or lower correlation between observed phenomenon. No claim is ever considered absolute and everything is considered open for revision should more evidence or even contradictory evidence be found. It is really only reporting on science that leads the average person to think something that has been learned via scientific processes is absolutely true. Scientists know it isn't.

Human beings are terrible at objectively assessing the world around us. We didn’t evolve to do so. We evolved to see things in a way that would keep us from getting killed and pass on our DNA. Consequently, we are full of intellectual blind spots. We are extremely susceptible to believing incorrect ideas for all kinds of reasons. We might believe something that isn’t true because everyone else does, because our parents taught us it was true, because we feel like it’s true, because we want it to be true, because we can’t handle the truth, because the truth is too complicated for our intuition to grasp at first glance, because our senses are unable measure it on their own (without additional technology), etc etc etc.

Testing the world around us allows us to keep our theories about it from going down a rabbit hole. Testing our ideas provides a safeguard against our own cognitive blind spots. Having other people criticize and review our ideas safeguards against our blind spots. Building on the ideas of others that tested things allows us to come to accurate logical conclusions that would be too complicated to come to on our own without building on their efforts. This allows humanity to move forward with life-changing technology and understanding through subsequent generations. Finally, subjecting our ideas to the testing also allows us to refine them to a level of precision which facilitates good decision making—especially for complex issues—possibly being the difference between life or death for thousands or even millions of people.

In short, the scientific method helps us avoid multitude of pitfalls we have to contend with in our imperfect minds. In doing so, it helps us get closer to understanding the universe and reality more accurately, which leads to an increase in quality of life.

MrPRevailer:
You are also hurting the religious people by imposing your evolution laws and immoral perversions, among others, on them.

how can facts Hurt people? Those people need to reevaluate themselves

XxSabrinaxX:

And what is wrong with the scientific method?

You are missing what I'm saying, or just don't understand a word I've written even though I'm slapping your face with it and poking it in your eye.

'Blind' people don't do science, Sab. That's why Jesus is said to spit on mud and rub it in peoples' eyes so they can see.

Everythig else you say below I agree with 110%

XxSabrinaxX:

First the scientific method is a method of inquiry. It isn't a set of beliefs. It is a set of processes by which we can better objectively know things. It is a very rigorous method and more subjective approaches to acquiring knowledge are routinely rejected by people utilizing the scientific method. This is often very annoying to people who don't want their beliefs to be scrutinzed objectively. However, because the rigorous use of the processes that make up the scientific method are so effective as a tool for learning objective knowledge, most scientifically minded people refuse to loosen their standards of evidence and logic. In that sense this strict adherence to rules of logic and standards of evidence can be considered a bit dogmatic, but it isn't really. It is simply adherence to a process that is known to work better then any other method devised for us to discern as best as possible what might be objectively true.

Second, no scientist every claims to know anything beyond a doubt. All they ever say is that there is a higher or lower correlation between observed phenomenon. No claim is ever considered absolute and everything is considered open for revision should more evidence or even contradictory evidence be found. It is really only reporting on science that leads the average person to think something that has been learned via scientific processes is absolutely true. Scientists know it isn't.

Human beings are terrible at objectively assessing the world around us. We didn’t evolve to do so. We evolved to see things in a way that would keep us from getting killed and pass on our DNA. Consequently, we are full of intellectual blind spots. We are extremely susceptible to believing incorrect ideas for all kinds of reasons. We might believe something that isn’t true because everyone else does, because our parents taught us it was true, because we feel like it’s true, because we want it to be true, because we can’t handle the truth, because the truth is too complicated for our intuition to grasp at first glance, because our senses are unable measure it on their own (without additional technology), etc etc etc.

Testing the world around us allows us to keep our theories about it from going down a rabbit hole. Testing our ideas provides a safeguard against our own cognitive blind spots. Having other people criticize and review our ideas safeguards against our blind spots. Building on the ideas of others that tested things allows us to come to accurate logical conclusions that would be too complicated to come to on our own without building on their efforts. This allows humanity to move forward with life-changing technology and understanding through subsequent generations. Finally, subjecting our ideas to the testing also allows us to refine them to a level of precision which facilitates good decision making—especially for complex issues—possibly being the difference between life or death for thousands or even millions of people.

In short, the scientific method helps us avoid multitude of pitfalls we have to contend with in our imperfect minds. In doing so, it helps us get closer to understanding the universe and reality more accurately, which leads to an increase in quality of life.

budaatum:

You are missing what I'm saying, or just don't understand a word I've written even though I'm slapping your face with it and poking it in your eye.

You're really not. I'm going to admit. Your posts have indeed been obfuscating.

budaatum:

'Blind' people don't do science, Sab. That's why Jesus is said to spit on mud and rub it in peoples' eyes so they can see.

Words of wisdom, budaatum

XxSabrinaxX:

You're really not. I'm going to admit. Your posts have indeed been obfuscating.


Words of wisdom, budaatum

Oh, come on Sab. Surely its me obfuscating and not you miscomprehending, lol. That last statement of yours conflicts though.

I find words are like coffee. You get a better cup when left to brew.

budaatum:

Oh, come on Sab. Surely its me obfuscating and not you miscomprehending, lol. That last statement of yours conflicts though.

I find words are like coffee. You get a better cup when left to brew.

budaatum:
Surely its me obfuscating....

Lol . So you do know what you're doing.....
If i may ask, budaatum? (and pls for the love of buda, answer in english), are you a theist?, deist perhaps?, agnostic....

XxSabrinaxX:


Lol . So you do know what you're doing.....
If i may ask, budaatum? (and pls for the love of buda, answer in english), are you a theist?, deist perhaps?, agnostic....

As far as the existence of gods are concerned, buda is an Atheist. An atheist atheist, in fact. The sort who unequivocally states that there are no gods except for those that people create in their minds!

Saying that though, and I'm sorry for not sticking to English as you've requested, some call buda buda, some think buda is Christian, buda has recently had to admit to being a builder and buda is going to a hell that doesn't exist! It's the demons in buda, see. They are legions.

budaatum:

As far as the existence of gods are concerned, buda is an Atheist. An atheist atheist, in fact. The sort who unequivocally states that there are no gods except for those that people create in their minds!

Saying that though, and I'm sorry for not sticking to English as you've requested, some call buda buda, some think buda is Christian, buda has recently had to admit to being a builder and buda is going to a hell that doesn't exist! It's the demons in buda, see. They are legions.

Lol. You sir, are something else

XxSabrinaxX:

Lol. You sir, are something else

Don't you go telling anyone now.

budaatum:
Don't you go telling anyone now.

Don't worry, buda. If my memory was worse, I could plan my own surprise party

XxSabrinaxX:

Don't worry, buda. If my memory was worse, I could plan my own surprise party

Hmmmmmmm i thought as much because most people won't just buy the idea of a God dictating how they must think or act!
But we're gradually getting to the end of the road when most inhabitants of the earth will beat their chests in grief for KILLING religion{the only institution that's been keeping people in check}!
Insanity is often weighed with the outward appearance of the effect but this time around,most people will realise that majority in their neighbourhood are MAD!

TATIME:
Hmmmmmmm i thought as much because most people won't just buy the idea of a God dictating how they must think or act!
But we're gradually getting to the end of the road when most inhabitants of the earth will beat their chests in grief for KILLING religion{the only institution that's been keeping people in check}!
Insanity is often weighed with the outward appearance of the effect but this time around,most people will realise that majority in their neighbourhood are MAD!

God has proven to be quite incompetent at dictating how people must act Tatime. It failed in the garden of Eden, and has failed ever since that one could claim God doesn't even try to dictate anymore, and people like you try to take it's place with you corrupt doctrine. Thankfully, there is the philosophy of Jesus Christ, which frees people from dictators!

TATIME:
Hmmmmmmm i thought as much because most people won't just buy the idea of a God dictating how they must think or act!
But we're gradually getting to the end of the road when most inhabitants of the earth will beat their chests in grief for KILLING religion{the only institution that's been keeping people in check}!
Insanity is often weighed with the outward appearance of the effect but this time around,most people will realise that majority in their neighbourhood are MAD!

Almost funny, TATIME.... Almost

budaatum:
God has proven to be quite incompetent at dictating how people must act Tatime. It failed in the garden of Eden, and has failed ever since that one could claim God doesn't even try to dictate anymore, and people like you try to take it's place with you corrupt doctrine. Thankfully, there is the philosophy of Jesus Christ, which frees people from dictators!

At John 8:28 Jesus said someone DICTATES every step He(Jesus) takes,so Jesus also subjected Himself to some DICTATOR!
What matters now is "how well do you understand the mindset of the one DICTATING?" 1Corinthians 2:16

XxSabrinaxX:

Almost funny, TATIME.... Almost

Hmmmmmmmmm

TATIME:
At John 8:28 Jesus said someone DICTATES every step He(Jesus) takes,so Jesus also subjected Himself to some DICTATOR!
What matters now is "how well do you understand the mindset of the one DICTATING?" 1Corinthians 2:16

Those verse do not imply a dictator, Tatime! Jesus never said he was dictated to nor did he dictate to anyone! He is the Lord of freewill, and hoped your will was God led.

You appear to me to be misunderstanding the teachings of Jesus, but if that's your understanding, then you be dictated to. I will express my freewill according to my understanding since I can't worship a god of lemmings.

budaatum:

Those verse do not imply a dictator, Tatime! Jesus never said he was dictated to nor did he dictate to anyone! He is the Lord of freewill, and hoped your will was God led.
You appear to me to be misunderstanding the teachings of Jesus, but if that's your understanding, then you be dictated to. I will express my freewill according to my understanding since I can't worship a god of lemmings.

Jesus lived all His pre~human life in heaven as a spirit being,angels in heaven always adhere strictly to instructions so they DON'T have freewill unlike humans who lives in the flesh here on earth!
So after His baptism Jesus' memory of His heavenly life returned to Him and He started thinking like an angel again! That is why He could utter what's written in John 8:28
Humans have freewill because we can choose to
*remain single or married
*childless or not
*eat,drink,wear whatever we like and recreation as personal hobbies.
Jehovah only gave us rules to guide us as a protection from harming ourselves due to our limited knowledge of the flesh we possess called "body".
Whoever decides to ignore such guidance will certainly cause harm to himself and others whether intentionally or ignorantly! Isaiah 48:17,18 compared to Psalms 103:14

TATIME:
Jesus lived all His pre~human life in heaven as a spirit being,angels in heaven always adhere strictly to instructions so they DON'T have freewill unlike humans who lives in the flesh here on earth!

You're talking to the wrong person Ta, a person with a brain that works, and not some two year old whom you feed. Is this the result of your being controlled and told what to think so you don't have to?

When told what you wrote above, the first thing that comes to my mind is, so, the door to heaven is in Mary's womb and it takes nine months to get through? And he still has to wait 30 odd years?! How absurd for a God who could have just said, "Jesus be, and 30 something" , and Jesus would just be 30 something!

Then there's the lie, or shall I just call it an untruth, or you just don't know. Read the following from [url=https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+14%3A12-15&version=NIV]Isaiah 14:12-15[/url] and let me know if angels don't have freewill!

“I will ascend to the heavens; I will raise my throne above the stars of God; I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly, on the utmost heights of Mount Zaphon. I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.”

Or is it your position that the being who said those words was not an angel in heaven?