MABB v6.6.6

So, the other day I was on campus, and as often happens in the "liberal hippie mecca of Boulder," some christian Nutjob took it upon himself to save as many sinful university students as he could. Naturally, he showed up wearing a sandwich board listing many of the things we students apparently do on a daily basis that will get us into hell. They included, but are not limited to:



Journalists

Idolaters

Liars

Child Molesters

Pornographers

Sorcerers

Homosexuals

Evolutionism

Whores

etc.



Anyway, as usually is the case with these loons, the hard-on bearer's standing on top of a brick landscaping wall, so that the audience is at shin-level to him. And he's shouting at everyone. He's furious. Doing his absolute damndest to explain why we're all going to hell. Very pissed at us. Because most students at my university are very intelligent, critical thinkers.



Before long, it's turned into a screaming contest between Nutjob and some few of the angriest members of the audience. There was actually one black dude who was very close to kicking Nutjob's ass for promoting "a racist religion." People started throwing condoms at Nutjob. I stood there for about an hour, watching the crowd become more and more unruly. Basically, a fairly level-headed crowd started to grow more and more hateful, and just stayed around to piss with him. Many, many damning questions were asked of Nutjob, which he skillfully let fly right over his head. There was even another set of three or four other Christians who were furious with Nutjob, who tried to get Nutjob to stop making an ass of their religion.



All in all, extraordinary entertainment.





What are your experiences with Christian wackos?

I think a large part of the general lack of critical thinking in society is due to religion. Teaching children in schools the bullshit that critical thinking and reliance on evidence is one of the worst attributes somebody could have, seems to me, the worst possible thing one could teach a child. People may laugh and consider idiots like the hard-on bearer above harmless, but what about the Jehovah's witnesses refusing blood transfusions? A little sexy leopard elevator could be in an accident and end up in ICU. Doctors decide she needs a blood transfusion. The parents refuse, because it's against their religion. If the parents had said it was because of some other reason like "The leprachauns told me", people would give the transfusion and call a Psychiatrist. The fact they say it's because of their religion, doctors don't just ignore them and call a Psychiatrist/Social Services, instead they actually consider their reason as somehow valid, because it's their "religion". They may wait for a court order giving them permission to transfuse. People spend resources trying to think of new types of blood products that are acceptable to people's religions.

It's not always explicit religious reasons people do crazy stuff like: not vaccinating children, not seeing actual doctors when their child is sick, etc. But it's an equivalent lack of basic logical thinking. People may think people reading astrology stuff is harmless. If you were ill, would you be okay with seeing a doctor who thinks there's something to astrology? What about seeing a doctor who thinks people have risen from the dead in the past, and think you will be going to a better place if you die?

I wish people weren't so fucking tolerant of people's religious stories. Why the shit do they get to break rules everyone else has to abide by just because they say it's their religion?

I'm tolerant of that hard-on bearer because he was entertaining, and because every time one of those morons shows up, they essentially recruit 30-50 people to work against them.

That's good. It is good to get people like that to maybe make clear just what it is they are claiming. Like the Tom Cruise of Chistianity.

Thankfully, I haven't had to deal with any uppity zealots but I went to my girlfriend's dad's funeral and it was one-a them speakin'-in-tongues Baptist gatherings. Those people are batshit crazy.

i wonder if they are the same duders who come to my campus?



these guys:



[youtube]aizBP309YVI[/youtube]



this video is from my campus from like September 9th.

I'd rather go to hell than spend all of eternity with someone like that.

[quote name="Johnny"]That's good. It is good to get people like that to maybe make clear just what it is they are claiming. Like the Tom Cruise of Chistianity.[/quote]



Exactly what I mean. There you go!!





The Tom Cruise of Christianity

I've experienced christian nutjobs a lot especially back in Texas. I've dealt with people who believe dancing, drinking, gambling, and even using contraception is a sin and I've asked a few of them "what's worse a condom or an abortion?"



There's a sect of christians who believe god will save them from a rattlesnake bite. They allow themselves to get bitten and through pure luck survive. I don't think all religious people are nuts, most are sane it's just the 1% that ruin it for all religious people

[quote name="Teignub"]i wonder if they are the same duders who come to my campus?



these guys:



[youtube]aizBP309YVI[/youtube]



this video is from my campus from like September 9th.[/quote]



No, not the same duders at all.



The hard-on bearer who was here on Thursday was in his 40s. And basically, he made this dude look fucking level-headed and popular. My dude is the George Bush Sr. to your hard-on bearer's Bill Clinton.



And the hard-on bearer who was here before him...let me tell you about Brother Jed. This hard-on bearer's about 60 or so. Shows up on campus with black slacks, white button-up shirt, suspenders, a straw hat, and a 6-foot-tall staff with a cross on the top of it. And if the dude from Thursday is George Bush Sr., this hard-on bearer is Richard Nixon.



In fact...lemme check...yep, he's on youtube. (oh wow...he's famous )



Here's a rich selection:

[youtube]7Hig6IepjhU[/youtube]

[youtube]94j5kdiGT7c[/youtube]

[youtube]nl4iuEDSPUk[/youtube]



Yeah. He's a lot worse. From what I caught listening to Jed, he used to be really into LSD, used to be a college professor, has molested children, has seen his daughters naked, and many other endearing personality traits.

Not all religious people are nuts?



Listen to what they claim! If it was only one person who made these or equivalent claims they'd be admitted to an asylum. Again, the "religion" label, and the "stength in numbers" card somehow exempts them from this. I think what happens is that most of them don't actually believe the outrageous claims. They avoid looking at them too closely.



But for fuck's sake.

Being Christian>believing Jesus is the son of god>believing he came to save us from original sin.



The concept of original sin implies that the book of Genesis is true, and that the universe, Adam and Eve were created after the invention of the wheel.



The concept of Christianity is entirely insane.

Whenever one meets someone who says they are Christian (or any other religion), it'd be an idea to ask them to what are the specifics that they believe. Then watch them struggle to admit any of these in clear language, as they know full well they'll get laughed at.

What makes either one of you better than them? Nothing, it's pretty insane what science claims/proves too you know and it's constantly changing so how do we know we're 100% right now? We don't there's always room for improvement and further understanding.



I mean it's pretty insane (without going into too much detail because this is a casual message board) that one little Ca2+ ion makes the difference between a muscle contraction or lack there of. Sliding Filament theory is pretty nuts, and what science accepted for muscle contraction before was even crazier I mean they thought water had a lot to do with it. The whole thing with oxi redox reactions allowing the creation of ATP is pretty mind boggling isn't it? I don't see the difference between understanding all this and believing in God. It's just as crazy as seeing everything fit in just right within the realm of science.

these ads have been all over town on the buses lately:







this isnt san francisco but ive seen this here:







ive seen this one on a bus too, but couldnt find pictures of it:









interesting if anything.

<!-- m -->http://www.ffrf.org/<!-- m -->

[quote name="Noyka"]What makes either one of you better than them? Nothing, it's pretty insane what science claims/proves too you know and it's constantly changing so how do we know we're 100% right now? We don't there's always room for improvement and further understanding.



I mean it's pretty insane (without going into too much detail because this is a casual message board) that one little Ca2+ ion makes the difference between a muscle contraction or lack there of. Sliding Filament theory is pretty nuts, and what science accepted for muscle contraction before was even crazier I mean they thought water had a lot to do with it. The whole thing with oxi redox reactions allowing the creation of ATP is pretty mind boggling isn't it? I don't see the difference between understanding all this and believing in God. It's just as crazy as seeing everything fit in just right within the realm of science.[/quote]



So. . something is complicated. . therefore God did it?



Science claims are based on evidence.



People make guesses. Calculate the consequences/predictions (ie if this guess is correct, what would we expect to observe?). Then compare the predictions to nature by doing experiments. If the guess disagrees with nature, it's wrong. Plain and simple. It is wrong. You then need to alter the guess, or maybe go back to the drawing board and come up with a completely new approach. Then repeat the process.

If you happen to find that the experiments are consistent with your guess, you have not proven, that the guess is true. It is just yet to be falsified. People don't prove things 100%, that's the whole point. All you can do is say that a guess is consistent with experiment, while showing how hard you tried to find a problem with it.



Sure some things, for all practical purposes can be considered "facts". Like the "fact" that the Earth orbits the Sun. Or that humans are made of cells. Or that sex makes babies. Eventually evidence supporting guesses can become so overwhelming that we call them facts. Of course, if someone was to come up with sufficient evidence to counter any of these guesses, people would listen. I just wouldn't hold my breath. However, when scientists use the words "fact" or "proven", that disclaimer is always implicitly there.



This reminds me of that useless fucking word "agnostic". People say they're not atheist, they're agnostic. Becase you can't prove 100% that God doesn't exist. My question to them is to give me a single example of something we don't have to be "agnostic" about. Whether or not we have to be "agnostic" about something is independent of whatever you're talking about. It's a completely meaningless, trite, thing to say. It adds nothing. Take the Pythagorean theorem. I'm sure countless people have seen proofs of this. People consider it proven. A fact. But is it not possible that everyone who has ever provided a proof (or read somebody elses) is mistaken? Maybe they made an error that nobody noticed? Can you literally 100% prove that this has not happened? NO, you can't! I guess we all have to be "agnostic" about the Pythagorean theorem. Same goes for all claims in Physics, Chemistry, Biology, etc. Everything. Whether it's a scientific claim about nature, or a "mathematical type" claim (This latter group being slightly different as whether or not the axioms are true is meaningless. The problem can only lie in the logical progression that follows). Anyone who says they're an atheist is not claiming to know "100%" that God doesn't exist. They're saying there is not the slightest bit of evidence in favour of God. The burden of proof is with the person proposing the idea.



And the "insanity" of how complex nature is completely different from the "insanity" of an irrational claim. It's being used to mean two diferent things.



I cannot understand how someone can be serious, and say what you just said.

[quote name="Noyka"]What makes either one of you better than them? Nothing, it's pretty insane what science claims/proves too you know and it's constantly changing so how do we know we're 100% right now? We don't there's always room for improvement and further understanding.



I mean it's pretty insane (without going into too much detail because this is a casual message board) that one little Ca2+ ion makes the difference between a muscle contraction or lack there of. Sliding Filament theory is pretty nuts, and what science accepted for muscle contraction before was even crazier I mean they thought water had a lot to do with it. The whole thing with oxi redox reactions allowing the creation of ATP is pretty mind boggling isn't it? I don't see the difference between understanding all this and believing in God. It's just as crazy as seeing everything fit in just right within the realm of science.[/quote]

Of course science doesn't have all the answers, if it did it would stop existing. Science is a permanent inquiry. Faith is permanent ignorance.



I have decided to not bend over backwards to be respectful towards people with irrational ideas. Respect for ideas has to be earned, they aren't exempt from criticism.



Think of what you would think of a co-worker who decided to skip work and stay home because the alignment of the planets wasn't adequate that day. You owe that person as much respect as you do to someone who literally believes something insane like the book of genesis, Noah's ark, or something along those lines. The entire concept of Christianity in particular is centered on the vicarious redemption of original sin by Jesus, the whole canon of the religion DEPENDS on the absurdity of the book of Genesis to be true.

Lavabug knows.

It's only a theory.

[quote name="Lavabug"]It's only a theory.[/quote]



Yes, we have to be agnostic.

Don't put too much faith in that ever-changing science! Electromagnetism is only a theory.

Gravity is also just a theory.

I can get a good laugh from your college story there HbW, but it also always gets me angry, for the reasons you all know ofcourse.

Every religion tries to have a monopoly on the truth while they're the ones who are totally backwards.



FUCK religion, Hail Santa, uh Satan!

[quote name="Lavabug"]
[quote name="Noyka"]What makes either one of you better than them? Nothing, it's pretty insane what science claims/proves too you know and it's constantly changing so how do we know we're 100% right now? We don't there's always room for improvement and further understanding.



I mean it's pretty insane (without going into too much detail because this is a casual message board) that one little Ca2+ ion makes the difference between a muscle contraction or lack there of. Sliding Filament theory is pretty nuts, and what science accepted for muscle contraction before was even crazier I mean they thought water had a lot to do with it. The whole thing with oxi redox reactions allowing the creation of ATP is pretty mind boggling isn't it? I don't see the difference between understanding all this and believing in God. It's just as crazy as seeing everything fit in just right within the realm of science.[/quote]

Of course science doesn't have all the answers, if it did it would stop existing. Science is a permanent inquiry. Faith is permanent ignorance.



I have decided to not bend over backwards to be respectful towards people with irrational ideas. Respect for ideas has to be earned, they aren't exempt from criticism.



Think of what you would think of a co-worker who decided to skip work and stay home because the alignment of the planets wasn't adequate that day. You owe that person as much respect as you do to someone who literally believes something insane like the book of genesis, Noah's ark, or something along those lines. The entire concept of Christianity in particular is centered on the vicarious redemption of original sin by Jesus, the whole canon of the religion DEPENDS on the absurdity of the book of Genesis to be true.[/quote]





No it doesn't, many of the stories are not literal they're reflective of historical events. Sodom and Gomora represent a volcanic eruption, most christians believe they're parables they represent morality but aren't literal. Jesus's miracles are a little crazy but so are parts of science. I don't respect fundies but I do respect religion because it interests me and most of those who are religious are harmless. Christianity is centered around Jesus's sacrifice and living up to a moral standard set by God. It's centered around love a lot of Christians have forgotten that but most have not. I don't see anything wrong with those who chose to believe in God and live moral lives. Most of them aren't pushing it on you or me so why should you judge them? The 1% who do? What about athiests who go in church ceremonies and burn bibles? Or those gay groups that go into catholic churches and make out dressed as nuns? They don't represent all non religious people so why lump in all religious with the fundies? When I know you don't want to be lumped in with the loons who aren't religious (nor do I)





I wasn't saying "SCIENCE IS ALL THEORY" there are obvious absolutes, I was just making a point at how mind boggling parts are and to me it's not that different from believing in a God.

Dude.



Get yourself a wheelchair.

[quote name="Void"]I can get a good laugh from your college story there HbW, but it also always gets me angry, for the reasons you all know ofcourse.

Every religion tries to have a monopoly on the truth while they're the ones who are totally backwards.



FUCK religion, Hail Santa, uh Satan! [/quote]



Oh trust me, I know what you mean. I have a really long fuse, very little truly pisses me off, but I did spend equal time laughing my ass off and trying to figure out how to get away with killing the hard-on bearer.

What makes either one of you better than them? Nothing, it's pretty insane what science claims/proves too you know and it's constantly changing so how do we know we're 100% right now? We don't there's always room for improvement and further understanding.



I mean it's pretty insane (without going into too much detail because this is a casual message board) that one little Ca2+ ion makes the difference between a muscle contraction or lack there of. Sliding Filament theory is pretty nuts, and what science accepted for muscle contraction before was even crazier I mean they thought water had a lot to do with it. The whole thing with oxi redox reactions allowing the creation of ATP is pretty mind boggling isn't it? I don't see the difference between understanding all this and believing in God. It's just as crazy as seeing everything fit in just right within the realm of science.

Of course science doesn't have all the answers, if it did it would stop existing. Science is a permanent inquiry. Faith is permanent ignorance.



I have decided to not bend over backwards to be respectful towards people with irrational ideas. Respect for ideas has to be earned, they aren't exempt from criticism.



Think of what you would think of a co-worker who decided to skip work and stay home because the alignment of the planets wasn't adequate that day. You owe that person as much respect as you do to someone who literally believes something insane like the book of genesis, Noah's ark, or something along those lines. The entire concept of Christianity in particular is centered on the vicarious redemption of original sin by Jesus, the whole canon of the religion DEPENDS on the absurdity of the book of Genesis to be true.

No it doesn't, many of the stories are not literal they're reflective of historical events. Sodom and Gomora represent a volcanic eruption, most christians believe they're parables they represent morality but aren't literal. Jesus's miracles are a little crazy but so are parts of science. I don't respect fundies but I do respect religion because it interests me and most of those who are religious are harmless. Christianity is centered around Jesus's sacrifice and living up to a moral standard set by God. It's centered around love a lot of Christians have forgotten that but most have not. I don't see anything wrong with those who chose to believe in God and live moral lives. Most of them aren't pushing it on you or me so why should you judge them? The 1% who do? What about athiests who go in church ceremonies and burn bibles? Or those gay groups that go into catholic churches and make out dressed as nuns? They don't represent all non religious people so why lump in all religious with the fundies? When I know you don't want to be lumped in with the loons who aren't religious (nor do I)

The reason I attribute the word "insane" to certain tenants of Christianity is not just because they are demonstrably false statements, but because the people who do believe it do so in the face of a slew of concordant evidence from not only every major field of science, but also written history and archeology.



You're going way off on a tangent here. You don't have to be a fundie to believe in some of the absurd things in the bible, but that still doesn't exempt silly ideas from being criticised. And the ratio of insane religious people(see the 45-50% of Americans that to think the earth is 6000 years old) to "regular" ones vs those that desecrate religion to regular atheists are not even close, so please don't draw comparisons.

I wasn't saying "SCIENCE IS ALL THEORY" there are obvious absolutes, I was just making a point at how mind boggling parts are and to me it's not that different from believing in a God.

Science is not insane because you accept its tenants based on EVIDENCE. There is no mental discordance in accepting that the earth is round since you can test the idea in several different ways. It would be insane if all the evidence said otherwise, and you chose to believe it regardless.

45-50% of Americans believe the earth is 6000 years old? Someone has been listening to progressive media way too long. Very few believe that.

I don't watch American news. Correction: 44%, and 10,000 years, but equally as absurd:



<!-- m -->http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Eart ... te_note-26<!-- m -->

As of 2008 a Gallup poll indicated that 50% of US adults agreed with the statement "human beings developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life." Whereas 44% of US adults agreed with the statement "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years."[27]

link 27 = <!-- m -->http://www.pollingreport.com/science.htm<!-- m -->



<!-- m -->http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallup_poll<!-- m -->

The Gallup Poll is the division of Gallup that regularly conducts public opinion polls in more than 140 countries around the world. Gallup Polls are often referenced in the mass media as a reliable and objective measure of public opinion. Gallup Poll results, analyses, and videos are published daily on Gallup.com in the form of data-driven news.

Something like half doesn't know that one year = one revolution of the Earth around the Sun either.

Let's get this thread back on track. Real world experiences with religious nutjobs, not the theoretical debate you've never actually had with one.

I don't watch American news. Correction: 44%, and 10,000 years, but equally as absurd:



<!-- m -->http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Eart ... te_note-26<!-- m -->

As of 2008 a Gallup poll indicated that 50% of US adults agreed with the statement "human beings developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life." Whereas 44% of US adults agreed with the statement "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years."[27]

link 27 = <!-- m -->http://www.pollingreport.com/science.htm<!-- m -->



<!-- m -->http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallup_poll<!-- m -->

The Gallup Poll is the division of Gallup that regularly conducts public opinion polls in more than 140 countries around the world. Gallup Polls are often referenced in the mass media as a reliable and objective measure of public opinion. Gallup Poll results, analyses, and videos are published daily on Gallup.com in the form of data-driven news.

Something like half doesn't know that one year = one revolution of the Earth around the Sun either.

I didn't know progressives only residedi n America, I was under the impression most European countries are run by them as well





Not sure I totally believe that poll, nobody I talk to has ever stated they believe that and yes I've gotten in discussions with christians over life, evolution, and the earth's age, The people I talk to represent majority of Americans I think so. Some are extremely liberal, some very conservative, some independant, some moderate.....

Noyka why do you hate reality? Those statistics are often quoted in extremely conservative media(quite proudly, embarrassingly enough).



[quote name="HbW"]Let's get this thread back on track. Real world experiences with religious nutjobs, not the theoretical debate you've never actually had with one.[/quote]

I've had a few altercations with some in my last year of high school, and it was when I lived in New Jersey, which isn't exactly a bible belt state. I can only imagine how much worse it is in the bible belt. They weren't funny experiences, just depressing.



After that, college was much better. Experiences with nutjobs became limited to crackhead preachers in the streets of Newark.

Two Mormons did come to my house once spewing their garbage. I was bullshitting them for most of the time, just agreeing and nodding my head but eventually I interrupted them to say I was an atheist.



The first thing one of them said was "oh, this will be fun."



There wasn't any arguing, but mostly questions regarding what I thought about life. One of their questions was what I thought happens after you die; I told them I didn't believe in an afterlife and that your body will become part of the earth when you're buried. They then proceeded to tell me what an empty life that sounded like. "That's such an empty life, what do you have to live for? Why don't you just kill yourself now?"



It made me realize how mindless these people really are.

[quote name="Lavabug"]
[quote name="HbW"]Let's get this thread back on track. Real world experiences with religious nutjobs, not the theoretical debate you've never actually had with one.[/quote]

I've had a few altercations with some in my last year of high school, and it was when I lived in New Jersey, which isn't exactly a bible belt state. I can only imagine how much worse it is in the bible belt. They weren't funny experiences, just depressing.



After that, college was much better. Experiences with nutjobs became limited to crackhead preachers in the streets of Newark.[/quote]



You were in New Jersey.. Were you expecting people here to think?



Once I got attacked by my entire biology class for not believing in any religion. Best part: we were learning about evolution.

I've never meet someone who doesn't believe in evolution

I wonder how big a sample they use for those polls.

And where/how they distribute the questionnaires.



I assume it's not handed out at church on a Texan Sunday.

back in the day i was hanging out at a fellating lover house and some mormans came to the door and we had just rolled a cigarette



i started screaming "WHO THE FUCK IS AT THE GOD DAMN DOOR?" and my fellating lover answered the door by throwing it open really fast and just staring at them



we both kept smoking and offering them "hits" then eventually just slowly shut the door in their faces, they stood there for a few minutes seeing if we'd open the door again.



i kinda feel bad about it now but it was hilarious back then.

Shouldn't feel bad. My fellating lover does housepainting door-to-door, and I imagine the Mormons were happy you even answered. Apparently it's only like one in ten that even come to the door.

[quote name="HbW"]Shouldn't feel bad. My fellating lover does housepainting door-to-door, and I imagine the Mormons were happy you even answered. Apparently it's only like one in ten that even come to the door.[/quote]



While I was having my chat with the Mormon's my mom was about to arrive home from work and actually drove by the house when she saw they were at the door. lol..

[quote name="Teignub"]



<!-- m -->http://www.ffrf.org/<!-- m -->[/quote]



These guys have been at it for a while. Didn't think they had enough of a following to advertise like this though.

[quote name="Johnny"]
[quote name="Noyka"]What makes either one of you better than them? Nothing, it's pretty insane what science claims/proves too you know and it's constantly changing so how do we know we're 100% right now? We don't there's always room for improvement and further understanding.



I mean it's pretty insane (without going into too much detail because this is a casual message board) that one little Ca2+ ion makes the difference between a muscle contraction or lack there of. Sliding Filament theory is pretty nuts, and what science accepted for muscle contraction before was even crazier I mean they thought water had a lot to do with it. The whole thing with oxi redox reactions allowing the creation of ATP is pretty mind boggling isn't it? I don't see the difference between understanding all this and believing in God. It's just as crazy as seeing everything fit in just right within the realm of science.[/quote]



So. . something is complicated. . therefore God did it?



Science claims are based on evidence.



People make guesses. Calculate the consequences/predictions (ie if this guess is correct, what would we expect to observe?). Then compare the predictions to nature by doing experiments. If the guess disagrees with nature, it's wrong. Plain and simple. It is wrong. You then need to alter the guess, or maybe go back to the drawing board and come up with a completely new approach. Then repeat the process.

If you happen to find that the experiments are consistent with your guess, you have not proven, that the guess is true. It is just yet to be falsified. People don't prove things 100%, that's the whole point. All you can do is say that a guess is consistent with experiment, while showing how hard you tried to find a problem with it.



Sure some things, for all practical purposes can be considered "facts". Like the "fact" that the Earth orbits the Sun. Or that humans are made of cells. Or that sex makes babies. Eventually evidence supporting guesses can become so overwhelming that we call them facts. Of course, if someone was to come up with sufficient evidence to counter any of these guesses, people would listen. I just wouldn't hold my breath. However, when scientists use the words "fact" or "proven", that disclaimer is always implicitly there.



This reminds me of that useless fucking word "agnostic". People say they're not atheist, they're agnostic. Becase you can't prove 100% that God doesn't exist. My question to them is to give me a single example of something we don't have to be "agnostic" about. Whether or not we have to be "agnostic" about something is independent of whatever you're talking about. It's a completely meaningless, trite, thing to say. It adds nothing. Take the Pythagorean theorem. I'm sure countless people have seen proofs of this. People consider it proven. A fact. But is it not possible that everyone who has ever provided a proof (or read somebody elses) is mistaken? Maybe they made an error that nobody noticed? Can you literally 100% prove that this has not happened? NO, you can't! I guess we all have to be "agnostic" about the Pythagorean theorem. Same goes for all claims in Physics, Chemistry, Biology, etc. Everything. Whether it's a scientific claim about nature, or a "mathematical type" claim (This latter group being slightly different as whether or not the axioms are true is meaningless. The problem can only lie in the logical progression that follows). Anyone who says they're an atheist is not claiming to know "100%" that God doesn't exist. They're saying there is not the slightest bit of evidence in favour of God. The burden of proof is with the person propos

ing the idea.



And the "insanity" of how complex nature is completely different from the "insanity" of an irrational claim. It's being used to mean two diferent things.



I cannot understand how someone can be serious, and say what you just said.[/quote]



So in your mind there's no difference between athiesm or agnosticism alright cool



I can be serious because there are claims that science proves everything, in essence it's a god based on evidence supporting a bunch of random theories. Those same random theories are answered by those of faith with "GOD DID IT" there's really not a lot of difference between the two answers.



Some people have events happen that in their mind prove god exists these "accidental experiments" provide them with the proof they need and they take comfort in that. I don't see anything wrong with that. IT's not logical to you because you have not experienced it. So it's arrogant to not even try to understand it.





"And the "insanity" of how complex nature is completely different from the "insanity" of an irrational claim. It's being used to mean two diferent things.

"



Not really things fitting together in natur fit "perfectly" almost as if there's a divine hand guiding them. To some people that's proof of God.

[quote name="Noyka"]I can be serious because there are claims that science proves everything, in essence it's a god based on evidence supporting a bunch of random theories. Those same random theories are answered by those of faith with "GOD DID IT" there's really not a lot of difference between the two answers.[/quote]

Could you put that in English please?



[quote name="Noyka"]Some people have events happen that in their mind prove god exists these "accidental experiments" provide them with the proof they need and they take comfort in that. I don't see anything wrong with that. IT's not logical to you because you have not experienced it. So it's arrogant to not even try to understand it.[/quote]

:facepalm:



[quote name="Noyka"]
[quote name="Johnny"]And the "insanity" of how complex nature is completely different from the "insanity" of an irrational claim. It's being used to mean two diferent things.[/quote] Not really things fitting together in natur fit "perfectly" almost as if there's a divine hand guiding them. To some people that's proof of God.[/quote]

:facepalm:

[quote name="Johnny"]
[quote name="Noyka"]What makes either one of you better than them? Nothing, it's pretty insane what science claims/proves too you know and it's constantly changing so how do we know we're 100% right now? We don't there's always room for improvement and further understanding.



I mean it's pretty insane (without going into too much detail because this is a casual message board) that one little Ca2+ ion makes the difference between a muscle contraction or lack there of. Sliding Filament theory is pretty nuts, and what science accepted for muscle contraction before was even crazier I mean they thought water had a lot to do with it. The whole thing with oxi redox reactions allowing the creation of ATP is pretty mind boggling isn't it? I don't see the difference between understanding all this and believing in God. It's just as crazy as seeing everything fit in just right within the realm of science.[/quote]



So. . something is complicated. . therefore God did it?



Science claims are based on evidence.



People make guesses. Calculate the consequences/predictions (ie if this guess is correct, what would we expect to observe?). Then compare the predictions to nature by doing experiments. If the guess disagrees with nature, it's wrong. Plain and simple. It is wrong. You then need to alter the guess, or maybe go back to the drawing board and come up with a completely new approach. Then repeat the process.

If you happen to find that the experiments are consistent with your guess, you have not proven, that the guess is true. It is just yet to be falsified. People don't prove things 100%, that's the whole point. All you can do is say that a guess is consistent with experiment, while showing how hard you tried to find a problem with it.



Sure some things, for all practical purposes can be considered "facts". Like the "fact" that the Earth orbits the Sun. Or that humans are made of cells. Or that sex makes babies. Eventually evidence supporting guesses can become so overwhelming that we call them facts. Of course, if someone was to come up with sufficient evidence to counter any of these guesses, people would listen. I just wouldn't hold my breath. However, when scientists use the words "fact" or "proven", that disclaimer is always implicitly there.



This reminds me of that useless fucking word "agnostic". People say they're not atheist, they're agnostic. Becase you can't prove 100% that God doesn't exist. My question to them is to give me a single example of something we don't have to be "agnostic" about. Whether or not we have to be "agnostic" about something is independent of whatever you're talking about. It's a completely meaningless, trite, thing to say. It adds nothing. Take the Pythagorean theorem. I'm sure countless people have seen proofs of this. People consider it proven. A fact. But is it not possible that everyone who has ever provided a proof (or read somebody elses) is mistaken? Maybe they made an error that nobody noticed? Can you literally 100% prove that this has not happened? NO, you can't! I guess we all have to be "agnostic" about the Pythagorean theorem. Same goes for all claims in Physics, Chemistry, Biology, etc. Everything. Whether it's a scientific claim about nature, or a "mathematical type" claim (This latter group being slightly different as whether or not the axioms are true is meaningless. The problem can only lie in the logical progression that follows). Anyone who says they're an atheist is not claiming to know "100%" that God doesn't exist. They're saying there is not the slightest bit of evidence in favour of God. The burden of proof is with the person proposing the idea.



And the "insanity" of how complex nature is completely different from the "insanity" of an irrational claim. It's being used to mean two diferent things.



I cannot understand how someone can be serious, and say what you just said.[/quote]



Very good post.

What do you think about Richard Dawkin's efforts in combating religious thought in society?

[quote name="ManOfSteel"]What do you think about Richard Dawkin's efforts in combating religious thought in society?[/quote]



I think he does a good job. Not just against religion, but against all religious-type thinking. It's good to see someone stand up and point out that the Emperor is in fact, wearing no clothes. He responds to the most ignorant and aggressive of people in such a calm, concise, gentle manner. I wish more people stopped respecting people's religious beliefs, and all the other religion-esque beliefs and claims people have. Sure everybody is entitled to an opinion, but that does not mean all opinions are equally valid.



Religion is arguably the worst of these things, because of it's ubiquitousness and the fact it's overtly taught to children in schools. I think it can be summed up by the whole "Doubting Thomas" story. In my opinion the most disgusting thing you could teach a child. I'm sure most children actually feel bad when they hear it, because they would have "doubted" just like Thomas did. Thomas was somehow a bad person for wanting to see evidence. Children's inherent curiosity and skepticism aren't just not encouraged, but are actively inhibited. If children's natural curiosity was encouraged, and they were taught about reality, they would not be taken in by such petty superstitions. There is so much about Nature that they could not but be fascinated by. They should be told about how things are figured out. Given examples of how we thought something was the case, but then how we found out we were wrong because, etc. People should be encouraged to ask questions.



This would also hopefully reduce the "alternative" medicine uptake and propagation. A more sinister thing that I have noticed more recently is this same lack of logical, scientific-type thinking in actual Medical health care providers. And just people in general, they're FUCKING IDIOTS! Sorry I'm going off on a tangent and not answering your question.



So, yea, Richard Dawkins is doing a great job in my opinion.

Dawkins often says he doesn't want all mention of religion banished from schools. That people can't understand some art and poetry and stuff without knowledge of religions. That kids should not be taught that the things are true, but should be taught about both ancient and contemporary religions, and that people used to believe these things, and that some still do. That's fair enough, I dont have a problem with that. I don't think it should, however, be a specific class on religion. It could be part of history or something. And maybe civics/political studies. Whatever, I just don't think it at all justifies a specific class. But I suppose the more critical thing is to stop teaching it as fact.

[quote name="Johnny"]I AM INCAPIBLE OF UNDERSTANDING PEOPLE

[/quote]



That's basically what you were saying here's the base of what I was saying and why:



People use god to understand complicated matter. It's important to understand their reasoning.



Agnosticism and athiesm to you are the same. Athiesm is saying there is no god because there is no proof. Agnosticism is saying I don't know if there is a god or not I have seen no proof either way.



You need to understand why people turn to god, know your enemy right? Understand them and respect them as human beings instead of being arrogant like you and Lavabug and other "intellectuals" often are. It just comes across as needless mocking and "I THINK I HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS HERE THEY ARE".



Everything I said is logic to people who believe in God, not to you and to an extent not to me. I don't see the difference between their frame of thinking and yours in all honesty. It's all a means to explain things in our life that are extremely complex. Both require evidence to them it's proof of god, to you it's science. I agree more with you than them. The more I learn the more I wonder what else is out there and the more I wonder about spirituality and yes religion. There's nothing wrong with that. I just fail at communication is all. So if I missed something or you still don't understand just let me know.



"If you happen to find that the experiments are consistent with your guess, you have not proven, that the guess is true. It is just yet to be falsified. People don't prove things 100%, that's the whole point. All you can do is say that a guess is consistent with experiment, while showing how hard you tried to find a problem with it.

"

That exact process proves god to some people. They fill in the gaps with him. It's just too mind boggling to you some people rationalize their beliefs by saying it's the only explanation apparently. It's stupid to you but not to them, if they want to use that fine, if they don't push their views on you is it really hurting you?



I agree Jehoviah's Wittnesses and other such religious people do pose a threat to their children that's why I think religion and medicine do need to be seperate but it's not going to happen any time soon because it is too engraved in our society for lack of a better word.

Hi Noyka

I'm done attempting to debate/argue on this forum for a while don't worry