Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

It's been going on since the time of Jesus Christ and they said to him to come down off the cross if you are God.
Of course Jesus could have come down from the Cross.
What do you think about science being societies answer to everything?

Let me ask you this, how do you think the smallpox vaccine can around? By people science'ing it up or praying for a cure?

Wonderman: Makes an anti-science thread, giving religion props.

Has an ion description in his sig.

I believe what Jesus said about united kingdom including science in it.

I didn't realize the UK existed back during the Biblical times.

Originally posted by Wonder Man
It's been going on since the time of Jesus Christ and they said to him to come down off the cross if you are God.
Of course Jesus could have come down from the Cross.
What do you think about science being societies answer to everything?
The people who said that to Jesus were nether scientists or secularists. They were theists who believed in other gods.

The reason that secularists rely on science to answer questions is because science gives answers that make better predictions then anything in the bible.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The people who said that to Jesus were nether scientists or secularists. They were theists who believed in other gods.

The reason that secularists rely on science to answer questions is because science gives answers that make better predictions then anything in the bible.

Several thoughts come to mind. None worth beginning, for fear of actually being drawn into a discussion with the OP. Knowing when to walk away - or even better, when not to engage at all - is perhaps the most criminally underrated internet skill.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The people who said that to Jesus were nether scientists or secularists. They were theists who believed in other gods.

The reason that secularists rely on science to answer questions is because science gives answers that make better predictions then anything in the bible.

Good post. Succinct and descriptive.

Originally posted by Wonder Man
I believe what Jesus said about united kingdom including science in it.

That it's full of wankers?

Originally posted by Robtard
Let me ask you this, how do you think the smallpox vaccine can around?
By people injecting a horse with it and noticed that it produced anti-bodies?

Originally posted by Astner
By people injecting a horse with it and noticed that it produced anti-bodies?

That would be sciencey, you stupid ass.

Go take a nap.

Astner doesn't believe in the scientific method.

Originally posted by Digi
...or even better, when not to engage at all - is perhaps the most criminally underrated internet skill.Because it's not showy --

-- damn, almost had it.

People who dismiss things they do not understand, are coming from a point of ignorance. I would think if someone really wanted to disprove science, they would learn as much about science as they could.

Maybe those who do that change their mind, and find science to be legitimate. After all, there have been many Christians who were also scientists.

Originally posted by Robtard
To be fair, I've seen many a secularist/self-labeled atheist dismiss religion and they've not read a single page of the Bible.


To be fair, religion =/= bible. I'd concur it's a massive structural portion of religion but there's churches, clergies, etc., that individuals who abstain from religion could be taking issue with.

Also, are you referencing religion in general or Judaism and Christianity? Most other religions don't have a bible, with the Tanakh being an exception. If you were just lazily generalizing, that's fine. Just confirming.

Calm down.

Was using Christianity specifically, as that's usually the focus of anything Religion Vs Science.

Originally posted by Robtard
Calm down.

Was using Christianity specifically, as that's usually the focus of anything Religion Vs Science.

Christianity =/= religion either, amazingly enough.

I mean, you used Christianity SO specifically that you labelled it "religion."

Hahaha. Good times. So, lazily generalizing. Got it.

If you'd calm down; take a few deep breaths, you'd see I was referring to Christians/Christianity when I used the word "religious" and "religion", as I qualified them with the word "Christianity".

Not sure you know what you mean, you seem to be all over the place; unfocused, really.

Originally posted by Robtard
If you'd calm down; take a few deep breaths, you'd see I was referring to Christianity when I used the word "religious" and "religion, as I qualified them with the word "Christianity".

Not sure you know what you mean, you seem to be all over the place.

Never said you weren't. Took issue with your vagueness. I had previously said I was confirming whether you were just being lazy. Nah, I'm focused. Just trying to help you understand.

All I'm saying is perhaps it's better to use "Christianity" when referencing, well, Christians.

No one's confused. Just taking a stab at you using a broad term when you claimed to be trying to go "specific."

Threw a little dash of c*nt in there but I was decently nice about it.

I mean, I think so.

If you can't make the obvious connection, it's really your own fault.

You don't expect to be spoon fed your whole life. Or do you?

It's abundantly evident you're confused. Like a child who wanders into the middle of a film they can't possibly begin to comprehend, but demands to know what is going on.

edit: you really should go back and listen to my advice. <--- more free great advice

Originally posted by Robtard
If you can't make the obvious connection, it's really your own fault.

You don't expect to be spoon fed your whole life. Or do you?

It's abundantly evident you're confused. Like a child who wanders into the middle of a film they can't possibly begin to comprehend, but demands to know what is going on.

It's obvious if I take your word for it, which I suppose I do. I'm not entitled to do that simply because you expect it, though.

I've made it evidently clear I'm not confused so if you ironically cannot, at the bare minimum, understand that, I'm not sure what else I can do for you.

For all I know, you f*cked up and meant religion. However, you could have just been vague and lazily referenced Christianity using the term "religion" which, you know, you were being precise about, like saying you were really trying to get a point across about apples but used the word "fruit" instead. Without referencing apples, of course.

I'll buy it. We can never prove otherwise but, even though you're acting foolish about it, I suppose I believe you. That's all we can really do, though.

Making the obvious connection after 'it' has been qualified is expected. We're not in kindergarten now.

If I take your word for it, which I will, cos I am kind.

If you follow the flow of what I was saying and the qualifier of "Christianity" I used, you'd see I was referring to Christianity all along. This is why I thought you were confused.

See, when you say that, you come off as still being confused. Oh well.

Originally posted by Robtard
Making the obvious connection after 'it' has been qualified is expected. We're not in kindergarten now.

If I take your word for it, which I will, cos I am kind.

If you follow the flow of what I was saying and the qualifier of "Christianity" I used, you'd see I was referring to Christianity all along. This is why I thought you were confused.

See, when you say that, you come off as still being confused. Oh well.

No, not at all, which I made clear. This is all a fancy way of saying, "Okay, so I was vague. If you don't assume, you're confused."

Also, I don't think you know what a qualifier is. It has to modify an adverb or adjective. Example: I antagonized her a little bit. You saying "religion" instead of "Christianity" isn't a f*cking qualifier, you dope.


If I follow the "flow" of what you were saying? Hahaha, man. You messed up. You were vague where you should have been specific. It's not a big deal. However, don't sit here and blame everyone else for your sh*t communication.

Also, you don't have to take my word for it because I indicated that I knew beforehand. You could gather this by reading, as opposed to merely looking at what I've posted.

Originally posted by The Renegade
No, not at all, which I made clear. This is all a fancy way of saying, "Okay, so I was vague. If you don't assume, you're confused."

Also, I don't think you know what a qualifier is. It has to modify an adverb or adjective. Example: I antagonized her a little bit. You saying "religion" instead of "Christianity" isn't a f*cking qualifier, you dope.

If I follow the "flow" of what you were saying? Hahaha, man. You messed up. You were vague where you should have been specific. It's not a big deal. However, don't sit here and blame everyone else for your sh*t communication.

Also, you don't have to take my word for it because I indicated that I knew beforehand. You could gather this by reading, as opposed to merely looking at what I've posted.

No assumptions were needed. Is English not your first languag? I think this might be the problem.

Qualifier: "a word (such as an adjective or adverb) or phrase that describes another word or group of words." When I used "Christianity", it described my earlier use of "religion" and "religious", which needed no assuming, just basic English comprehension skills. Seems English is indeed your second language. No worries, mate, no need to rage and get personal over it.

See above. I think we discovered the source of your earlier confusion. Being pissy about it still is silly.

You only thought you knew, see above. Hope it's all cleared up now. Cheers.

Originally posted by Robtard

Religious people who dismiss the scientific method generally don't dismiss everything science has proved/given humanity. It's generally just the parts that don't gel with the Bible. Evolution probably being the biggest cause of religious painal.


Originally posted by Robtard

If you follow the flow of what I was saying and the qualifier of "Christianity" I used, you'd see I was referring to Christianity all along.



I don't know if you intended to have "pain" or "denial" or something else entirely when you typed "painal", but, it might be worth pointing out that Christians are not the only religious people who have objections to the teachings of evolution.



Followers of Islam have similar objections, as made explicit in my very first thread in the Religion Forum:

http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=576376


which features the following video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAPqwOV8zn8
6 min 39 sec

No, "painal" was intended. It's not worth pointing out here.

Originally posted by The Renegade
No, not at all, which I made clear. This is all a fancy way of saying, "Okay, so I was vague. If you don't assume, you're confused."

Also, I don't think you know what a qualifier is. It has to modify an adverb or adjective. Example: I antagonized her a little bit. You saying "religion" instead of "Christianity" isn't a f*cking qualifier, you dope.


If I follow the "flow" of what you were saying? Hahaha, man. You messed up. You were vague where you should have been specific. It's not a big deal. However, don't sit here and blame everyone else for your sh*t communication.

Also, you don't have to take my word for it because I indicated that I knew beforehand. You could gather this by reading, as opposed to merely looking at what I've posted. I understood completely.

Maybe you're just not very intelligent?

Good job pointing out a typo as a means to avoid the points you can't counter

"Bible" when capitalized effectively refers to the Christian bible. See, you're really coming off as confused still.

I stopped reading after your second line. Really see no point in going for another page when you're simply confused, don't know what a "qualifier" entails and can't comprehend what capitalization of given words confers; yet refuse to listen cos I apparently offended you in trying to explain what should have been known from the start.

Everyone else followed what I said. So have fun arguing against yourself, as I'm done indulging your nonsense. Cheers.

Originally posted by The Renegade

You assumed. I didn't.

Also, I thought I made it sooooo clear that I understood but was confirming. Sure, I thought his choices were sh*t but how does this indicate a lack of understanding?

Don't drop rhetorical questions red-dotting my intelligence unless you intend on backing it up. A good start would be not telling me I didn't understand when I showed that I did.

I didn't assume. I knew, both due to my deductive reasoning and prior interactions with Robtard. So, lurk more?

No, you left an escape plan in your post in case you turned out to be wrong. Which you did, so now you're clinging to the hole you left like a coward. Just admit you're being silly.

Well it is a rhetorical question, I grant you. I already know the answer.

Originally posted by Robtard
Good job pointing out a typo as a means to avoid the points you can't counter

Yeah, but then there's the part where I countered them. Fool.



See, now you're starting to make me feel like you're just full of sh*t. Also, I'm dying at you thinking it "effectively" refers to the Christian bible. In which way would it be ineffective?

Perhaps there's Judaism as well? There's that. I mentioned that. I really did. Earlier. The Tanakh? You recall? No, really. The term is a split. Check it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible






Me: *Provides argument*
You: You're confused! Qualifiers can jump sentences! The bible pertains to Christianity, which is what I meant when I said "effectively"! You're still confused! I didn't comprehend that you were merely attempting to avoid a small assumption by asking whether or not I meant Christianity (or Judaism) by what I said or whether I was referencing religion broadly! You're STILL confused! Confused!
Me:

http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/absurd.gif

Originally posted by NemeBro
I didn't assume. I knew, both due to my deductive reasoning and prior interactions with Robtard. So, lurk more?

No, you did. You had to because he wasn't clear. It doesn't matter why. That's the way it is.



Wrong? I wasn't wrong about anything. I asked a question and it wasn't one where I was incorrect so stop pulling nonsense from your ass. An "escape plan?" You're paranoid and in your second post. Sheesh, this stuff usually comes after when in the company of idiocy.

Although, I suppose it's entirely circumstantial.



You really don't, as much as you'd convince yourself that you do.

Originally posted by NemeBro
I understood completely.


Imagine that.

The Renegade is an idiot. This is why I always go Paragon.

Originally posted by Robtard
Imagine that.

Avoidance is key here, which is something I understand you have no choice but to do.

He assumed completely, which is fine. I didn't, which is also fine. I asked you instead. You didn't like it and got your panties in a bunch, trying to worm out of it. I said I didn't prefer the way you communicated it which worsened your level of irritation, which I only express apathy regarding.

He'll respond, saying it's not an assumption again (it is) because it requires him to guess what you mean, even if he knows you. That's irrelevant.

It just means he trusts you but still has to make the assumption. If you own three boxes, which are box A, B, and C... and you tell him daily that there's content in box C, he'll assume that there is because he knows you... but he cannot be sure so he has to assume each time, whether or not he "knows" you.

He'll then probably take another generic swipe at my intellect, which is fine. It changes nothing.

Originally posted by Dramatic Gecko
The Renegade is an idiot. This is why I always go Paragon.

Unless you have something to contribute, you should probably be quiet. I've been called this already in this thread. You're literally adding nothing new.

Originally posted by Dramatic Gecko
The Renegade is an idiot.

No need to stoop to his level. He's clearly just looking to rage-argue with anyone about anything. I suspect just a sock-troll with a grudge.

As you'll notice, he's responding to post of mine that were not directed at him; he'll probably reply to this one as well.

Originally posted by Wonder Man


What do you think about science being societ answer to everything?




Most people do not fully understand what science is and what its limitations are.

In regards to evolution especially, Greg Koukl explains the confusion of proponents of "scientific method" in one of the best articles I've read:



---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What Science Can't Prove


I often hear the comment, "Science has proved there is no God." Don't ever be bullied by such a statement. Science is completely incapable of proving such a thing.

I'm not saying that because I don't like science, but rather because I know a little about how science works. Science operates on induction. The inductive method entails searching out things in the world and drawing generalized conclusions about those things based on observation. Scientists can only draw conclusions on what they find, not on what they can't find.

Science, by its very nature, is never capable of proving the non-existence of anything.

For example, can science prove there are no unicorns? Absolutely not. How could science ever prove that unicorns don't exist? All science can do is say that scientists may have been looking for unicorns for a long time and never found any. They might therefore conclude that no one is justified in believing that unicorns exist. They might show how certain facts considered to be evidence for unicorns in the past can be explained adequately by other things. They may invoke Occam's Razor to favor a simpler explanation for the facts than that unicorns exist. But scientists can never prove unicorns themselves don't exist.

Since science, by its very nature, is never capable of proving the non-existence of anything, one can never accurately claim that science has proven God doesn't exist. That's a misuse of the discipline. Such a claim would require omniscience. The only way one can say a thing does not exist is not by using the inductive method, but by using a deductive method, by showing that there's something about the concept itself that is contradictory.

I can confidently say for sure that no square circles exist. Why? Not because I've searched the entire universe to make sure that there aren't any square circles hiding behind a star somewhere. No, I don't need to search the world to answer that question.

The concept of square circles entails a contradictory notion, and therefore can't be real. A thing cannot be a square and be circular (i.e., not a square) at the same time. A thing cannot be a circle and squared (i.e., not a circle) at the same time. Therefore, square circles cannot exist. The laws of rationality (specifically, the law of non-contradiction) exclude the possibility of their existence.

This means, by the way, that all inductive knowledge is contingent. One cannot know anything inductively with absolute certainty. The inductive method gives us knowledge that is only probably true. Science, therefore, cannot be certain about anything in an absolute sense. It can provide a high degree of confidence based on evidence that strongly justifies scientific conclusions, but its method never allows certainty.

If you want to know something for certain, with no possibility of error--what's called apodictic certainty in philosophy--you must employ the deductive method ...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.str.org/articles/what-science-can-t-prove#.U1cZM1eqTyt

So? Not everything I respond to need be directed at me.

"Guys, next level prediction... He'll respond to something I said, which is what he's, well... it's what he's been doing!"

Good call!

You asked me to calm down after I asked you a simple question. It's no surprise you think there's rage here when there isn't. Was it the length of my posts? Do the words multiply the rage? I'm not familiar.

A sock, yeah. Troll? No. No grudges.

Originally posted by The Renegade



Unless you have something to contribute, you should probably be quiet. I've been called this already in this thread. You're literally adding nothing new.

Well look who's so confident. I'll tell you your first big mistake, you told someone, on the INTERNET to be quiet. When the **** has this ever worked? Expecting it to work or even just asking is the sign of an idiot. Your second mistake is arguing about someone's generalisation of something, in this case religion. We all know he means Christianity because Jesus and Bible were mentioned on the OP. Arguing with someone about how the word religion encompasses more then one religion in this context is just an idiotic thing to do and someone looking for a troll fight.

Originally posted by Dramatic Gecko
Well look who's so confident. I'll tell you your first big mistake, you told someone, on the INTERNET to be quiet. When the **** has this ever worked? Expecting it to work or even just asking is the sign of an idiot. Your second mistake is arguing about someone's generalisation of something, in this case religion. We all know he means Christianity because Jesus and Bible were mentioned on the OP. Arguing with someone about how the word religion encompasses more then one religion in this context is just an idiotic thing to do and someone looking for a troll fight.

Yes, I was being completely literal. I'm such an idiot for saying that. Gee, what a great measurement of my intellect.

No, you assumed. You don't even know for sure now. We all take his word for it, including myself, but I merely asked. I wasn't a big fan of how he communicated but that wasn't the point. I asked anyway to confirm from him. No big deal. It was turned into one, no thanks to him.

"What? No! It was you!"

Really? Look back and see who IMMEDIATELY asked me to calm down just because I asked. Oh, was it the "lazy" I added? He probably felt insulted. In which case, too f*cking bad. Don't be such a baby. He WAS lazy.

Who cares about what was mentioned by OP? That has no attachment. Firstly, we are in the OFF TOPIC forum. Secondly, these discussions have a tendency to branch out and mention other religions or religion in general. It's really not uncommon.

No, it's not "idiotic." You're just attaching the word "idiot" to whatever activity I do because you don't want to put a smidgen of thought into your responses. That's alright but try not to respond until you can construct a retort that's half decent. Thanks!

"Yeah? Well, what kind of person would, um, capitalize Off Topic? That's what, um, an idiot would do! Yeah! That's good!"

Jesus. Just stop.

Called it.

^

http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/pWyHiV3l3MA/hqdefault.jpg

Oh dear. This is just ridiculous.

Originally posted by The Renegade
Yes, I was being completely literal. I'm such an idiot for saying that. Gee, what a great measurement of my intellect.

No, you assumed. You don't even know for sure now. We all take his word for it, including myself, but I merely asked. I wasn't a big fan of how he communicated but that wasn't the point. I asked anyway to confirm from him. No big deal. It was turned into one, no thanks to him.

"What? No! It was you!"

Really? Look back and see who IMMEDIATELY asked me to calm down just because I asked. Oh, was it the "lazy" I added? He probably felt insulted. In which case, too f*cking bad. Don't be such a baby. He WAS lazy.

Who cares about what was mentioned by OP? That has no attachment. Firstly, we are in the OFF TOPIC forum. Secondly, these discussions have a tendency to branch out and mention other religions or religion in general. It's really not uncommon.

No, it's not "idiotic." You're just attaching the word "idiot" to whatever activity I do because you don't want to put a smidgen of thought into your responses. That's alright but try not to respond until you can construct a retort that's half decent. Thanks!

"Yeah? Well, what kind of person would, um, capitalize Off Topic? That's what, um, an idiot would do! Yeah! That's good!"

Jesus. Just stop.

Very good. You have my respect as a debater, you lack evidence completely but that is forgivable because when you think about it we are arguing over nothing and therefore there is no evidence.

You are no longer an idiot to me but you are defiantly an over reactor.

Your ability to cut down others is impressive but rendering all others retorts as invalid because it insults you is the cowards way out.

Originally posted by Digi
Ignoring the Sorgo nonsense,


is this really the same thing though? I'm no Bible scholar, but I am familiar with it and have read a fair amount. But what's the Hitchens quote...I think "that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." Or something similar. In any case, I think it applies. Unless the Bible has had its historical veracity verified or has predictive power, I'd contend that a knowledge of it is NOT a prerequisite for dismissing it (though it helps, of course). By contrast, science does offer those things, so an understanding would be necessary to refute it.



Lol, painal.
The best course of action, agreed.

Your stance is logical; I wasn't intending to imply one needs to know every little facet of the Bible before they can dismiss any given aspect. Was just saying it in regards to Shaky's comment that theist who dismiss any given facet of science are automatically ignorant of said facet. That isn't always true.

Glad someone got the reference

Originally posted by Dramatic Gecko
Very good. You have my respect as a debater, you lack evidence completely but that is forgivable because when you think about it we are arguing over nothing and therefore there is no evidence.

You are no longer an idiot to me but you are defiantly an over reactor.

Your ability to cut down others is impressive but rendering all others retorts as invalid because it insults you is the cowards way out.

Lack evidence in regards to what, exactly? We are definitely arguing over something. I'd dispute it's importance, however.

Am I defiantly an "over reactor?" I do defy quite a lot but I never knew I was a reactor. Nuclear, was it?

I didn't render your retort invalid because it insulted me. I rendered it invalid because that's all it did. Surely, you understand.

Originally posted by Robtard
Yeah, took me a few post to realize he's just a troll looking for a silly fight. My error.


No, I really wasn't. You just chose the wrong partner to tango with. It happens. You'll move on with your life.

Originally posted by Digi
Ignoring the Sorgo nonsense, is this really the same thing though? I'm no Bible scholar, but I am familiar with it and have read a fair amount. But what's the Hitchens quote...I think "that which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." Or something similar. In any case, I think it applies. Unless the Bible has had its historical veracity verified or has predictive power, I'd contend that a knowledge of it is NOT a prerequisite for dismissing it (though it helps, of course). By contrast, science does offer those things (predictive power, the ability to independently confirm it, etc.), so an understanding would be necessary to refute it.




Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Most people do not fully understand what science is and what its limitations are.

In regards to evolution especially, Greg Koukl explains the confusion of proponents of "scientific method" in one of the best articles I've read:




---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What Science Can't Prove (continued)

... So don't be cowed or bullied by any comments that science has proven there is no God. Science can't do that because it uses the inductive method, not the deductive method. When you hear someone make that claim, don't contradict them. Simply ask this question: "How can science prove that someone like God doesn't exist? Explain to me how science can do that. Spell it out."

Some take the position that if science doesn't give us reason to believe in something, then no good reason exists. That's simply the false assumption of scientism.

You can even choose something you have no good reason to believe actually does exist--unicorns, or leprechauns, for that matter. Make that person show you, in principle, how science is capable of proving that any particular thing does not exist. He won't be able to. All he'll be able to show you is that science has proven certain things do exist, not that they don't exist. There's a difference.

Some take the position that if science doesn't give us reason to believe in something, then no good reason exists. That's simply the false assumption scientism. Don't ever concede the idea that science is the only method available to learn things about the world.

Remember the line in the movie Contact? Ellie Arroway claimed she loved her father, but she couldn't prove it scientifically. Does that mean she didn't really love him? No scientific test known to man could ever prove such a thing. Ellie knew her own love for her father directly and immediately. She didn't have to learn it from some scientific test.

There are things we know to be true that we don't know through empirical testing--the five senses-- but we do know through other ways. Science seems to give us true, or approximately true, information about the world, and it uses a technique that seems to be reliable, by and large. (Even this, though, is debated among philosophers of science.) However, science is not the only means of giving us true information about the world; its methodology limits it significantly.

One thing science cannot do, even in principle, is disprove the existence of anything. So when people try to use science to disprove the existence of God, they're using science illegitimately. They're misusing it, and this just makes science look bad.

The way many try to show God doesn't exist is simply by asserting it, but that's not proof. It isn't even evidence. Scientists sometimes get away with this by requiring that scientific law--natural law--must explain everything. If it can't explain a supernatural act or a supernatural Being then neither can exist. This is cheating, though.

Scientists haven't proven God doesn't exist; they've merely assumed it in many cases. They've foisted this truism on the public, and then operated from that point of view. They act as if they've really said something profound, when all they've done is given you an unjustified opinion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.str.org/articles/what-science-can-t-prove#.U1cZM1eqTyt

Originally posted by The Renegade
Lack evidence in regards to what, exactly? We are definitely arguing over something. I'd dispute it's importance, however.

Am I defiantly an "over reactor?" I do defy quite a lot but I never knew I was a reactor. Nuclear, was it?

I didn't render your retort invalid because it insulted me. I rendered it invalid because that's all it did. Surely, you understand.

I am not talking about you anymore, you have proven to be a worthy debater, doesn't mean I have to like you. If you wish to argue more, I suggest we find something more important to argue over because this is crap.

Originally posted by Dramatic Gecko
I am not talking about you anymore, you have proven to be a worthy debater, doesn't mean I have to like you. If you wish to argue more, I suggest we find something more important to argue over because this is crap.

No, we won't. I don't argue anything of importance on KMC, particularly with most of the members here. I communicate with the members I fancy on other websites/software. I have had "meaningful" debates with people I don't know well/strangers but not here. This place is a disaster. I assert that it always has been.

I can be entertaining. It ends there. No, not because of "trolling." That's the hasty label that will be attached to this back-and-forth I've had with a few of you. It's to be expected, though.

I take this website and it's members as seriously as it does itself and myself. No, you do not have to like me. No one said or implied to did. You probably won't. I'm not a likable individual to most.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What Science Can't Prove (continued)

... So don't be cowed or bullied by any comments that science has proven there is no God. Science can't do that because it uses the inductive method, not the deductive method. When you hear someone make that claim, don't contradict them. Simply ask this question: "How can science prove that someone like God doesn't exist? Explain to me how science can do that. Spell it out."

Some take the position that if science doesn't give us reason to believe in something, then no good reason exists. That's simply the false assumption of scientism.

You can even choose something you have no good reason to believe actually does exist--unicorns, or leprechauns, for that matter. Make that person show you, in principle, how science is capable of proving that any particular thing does not exist. He won't be able to. All he'll be able to show you is that science has proven certain things do exist, not that they don't exist. There's a difference.

Some take the position that if science doesn't give us reason to believe in something, then no good reason exists. That's simply the false assumption scientism. Don't ever concede the idea that science is the only method available to learn things about the world.

Remember the line in the movie Contact? Ellie Arroway claimed she loved her father, but she couldn't prove it scientifically. Does that mean she didn't really love him? No scientific test known to man could ever prove such a thing. Ellie knew her own love for her father directly and immediately. She didn't have to learn it from some scientific test.

There are things we know to be true that we don't know through empirical testing--the five senses-- but we do know through other ways. Science seems to give us true, or approximately true, information about the world, and it uses a technique that seems to be reliable, by and large. (Even this, though, is debated among philosophers of science.) However, science is not the only means of giving us true information about the world; its methodology limits it significantly.

One thing science cannot do, even in principle, is disprove the existence of anything. So when people try to use science to disprove the existence of God, they're using science illegitimately. They're misusing it, and this just makes science look bad.

The way many try to show God doesn't exist is simply by asserting it, but that's not proof. It isn't even evidence. Scientists sometimes get away with this by requiring that scientific law--natural law--must explain everything. If it can't explain a supernatural act or a supernatural Being then neither can exist. This is cheating, though.

Scientists haven't proven God doesn't exist; they've merely assumed it in many cases. They've foisted this truism on the public, and then operated from that point of view. They act as if they've really said something profound, when all they've done is given you an unjustified opinion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.str.org/articles/what-science-can-t-prove#.U1cZM1eqTyt

Meanwhile, under the radar, BWR is bastardizing the burden of proof again.

ur dumb

Originally posted by BackFire
ur dumb

NO U

...

Where have you been? And why is the FBI asking me about you? Stay on the line.

I've been on a 2 week masturbation binge. Taking a break to hydrate/go to the hospital and masturbate on various nurses/doctors/bedding.

Originally posted by BackFire
ur dumb

There you are, you f*cking pedophile.

That's uncalled for. There's no need for the F word.

Originally posted by BackFire
I've been on a 2 week masturbation binge. Taking a break to hydrate/go to the hospital and masturbate on various nurses/doctors/bedding.

Try this instead. It'll save you court costs and gas money.

Is he an AC sock? The self back-patting, claims of not caring (while caring), insisting he's entertaining and false arrogance is very similar to 2007 AC.

He's Sorgo.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Try this instead. It'll save you court costs and gas money.

But I enjoy the misery my antics create.

What's a Sorgo?

Originally posted by Robtard
Is he an AC sock? The self back-patting, claims of not caring (while caring), insisting he's entertaining and false arrogance is very similar to 2007 AC.

I claimed to not care about specific things. I never said I was apathetic generally, otherwise I wouldn't be responding. Is there legitimacy to your pun-like username, or what?

I'm still waiting for your retort. I won't held my breath, lest I pass out and f*cking die.

I've responded to you several times. If you don't know who I'm socking by now, I'd doubt you could even put a cube block through a cube-shaped hole, at this point.

Originally posted by The Renegade
No, we won't. I don't argue anything of importance on KMC, particularly with most of the members here. I communicate with the members I fancy on other websites/software. I have had "meaningful" debates with people I don't know well/strangers but not here. This place is a disaster. I assert that it always has been.

I can be entertaining. It ends there. No, not because of "trolling." That's the hasty label that will be attached to this back-and-forth I've had with a few of you. It's to be expected, though.

I take this website and it's members as seriously as it does itself and myself. No, you do not have to like me. No one said or implied to did. You probably won't. I'm not a likable individual to most.

Pffft, you don't seem like someone who would have a meaningful debate. You are getting really boring real quick.

Originally posted by Robtard
What's a Sorgo?

Like AC but gayer.

Originally posted by BackFire

But I enjoy the misery my antics create.

Ditto! We share a lot.

Want to trade dungeon photos of eleven year olds?

Originally posted by BackFire
Like AC but gayer.

Flaming, dude. Like your ****ing Kings getting railed.

Originally posted by Dramatic Gecko
Pffft, you don't seem like someone who would have a meaningful debate. You are getting really boring real quick.

I'm not your entertainment center. You're mine.

I don't care what you think I seem like from a handful of posts regarding a debate about semantics, honestly.

Originally posted by BackFire
Like AC but gayer.

So he's a tracer is what you're saying. How unoriginal.

Eleven year olds? Shameful. Single digit age only, for me.

My Kings are just making it interesting. By losing horribly.

Originally posted by BackFire
He's Sorgo.



But I enjoy the misery my antics create.

This explains much.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
This explains much.

Whatever it explains should already be common knowledge by now.

Like Sorgo's love for black men.

Originally posted by BackFire
Eleven year olds? Shameful. Single digit age only, for me.

My Kings are just making it interesting. By losing horribly.

I wanted a cross into hebephilia. I mean. can't you round a bit? Excessively, perhaps?

Yeah, about as interesting as the Bruins/Canucks finals in '11.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
This explains much.

Do you wanna get smacked, Janus?

Originally posted by The Renegade


I don't care what you think I seem like from a handful of posts regarding a debate about semantics, honestly.

Point taken. Get more interesting sock. Entertain me.

Originally posted by The Renegade
Yeah, about as interesting as the Bruins/Canucks finals in '11.





So it's going seven games, is what you're saying?

Originally posted by BackFire
So it's going seven games, is what you're saying?

Yeah, mathematically. In spirit, it's basically a sweep.

Also, is there something wrong with loving black men?

Not "wrong". Just "disgusting".

Originally posted by The Renegade
I wanted a cross into hebephilia. I mean. can't you round a bit? Excessively, perhaps?

Yeah, about as interesting as the Bruins/Canucks finals in '11.



Do you wanna get smacked, Janus?

Nah. I am a self-fulfilling prophecy though:

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Meanwhile, under the radar, BWR is bastardizing the burden of proof again.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Nah. I am a self-fulfilling prophecy though:

It in the guy's signature. How can you even cope with that? It's one thing to argue with those who accept that logic exists but don't understand it and it's another to deal with those that reject it entirely.

Originally posted by BackFire
Not "wrong". Just "disgusting".

A difference without a distinction, Gary Glitter.

I've had my fill of BWR for the time being, the lolz unfortunately died quickly.

Originally posted by The Renegade
A difference without a distinction, Gary Glitter.

I guess that makes sense for you, since you're an idiot who doesn't understand the meaning of words.

Originally posted by BackFire
I guess that makes sense for you, since you're an idiot.

^ You, Chris.

Originally posted by The Renegade
I claimed to not care about specific things. I never said I was apathetic generally, otherwise I wouldn't be responding.

Is there legitimacy to your pun-like username, or what?

I'm still waiting for your retort. I won't held my breath, lest I pass out and f*cking die.

I've responded to you several times. If you don't know who I'm socking by now, I'd doubt you could even put a cube block through a cube-shaped hole, at this point.

Make up your mind already.

You're the first poster to ever try and use my screen name as an insult. You get more originality points.

Nothing left to retort to. You were utterly confused at worse, or just being a pedantic ninny at best. <--- factual facts

You assume like I should automatically know who "Sorgo" was in here, when you were previously crying about having to make assumptions. Feel silly, feel silly now. Do you think you were important or something.

These are the facts: In your ignorance you bit off more than you could chew and you got mauled in return. Don't feel bad though, I'm known as "The Old Lion" around these parts, you're just a statistic. If anything take a positive out of it, you now know what a "qualifier" is; that's more than you knew yesterday.

Originally posted by Robtard
Glad someone got the reference

Indeed.

awecreep

Originally posted by bluewaterrider

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What Science Can't Prove (continued)

... So don't be cowed or bullied by any comments that science has proven there is no God. Science can't do that because it uses the inductive method, not the deductive method. When you hear someone make that claim, don't contradict them. Simply ask this question: "How can science prove that someone like God doesn't exist? Explain to me how science can do that. Spell it out."

Some take the position that if science doesn't give us reason to believe in something, then no good reason exists. That's simply the false assumption of scientism.

You can even choose something you have no good reason to believe actually does exist--unicorns, or leprechauns, for that matter. Make that person show you, in principle, how science is capable of proving that any particular thing does not exist. He won't be able to. All he'll be able to show you is that science has proven certain things do exist, not that they don't exist. There's a difference.

Some take the position that if science doesn't give us reason to believe in something, then no good reason exists. That's simply the false assumption scientism. Don't ever concede the idea that science is the only method available to learn things about the world.

Remember the line in the movie Contact? Ellie Arroway claimed she loved her father, but she couldn't prove it scientifically. Does that mean she didn't really love him? No scientific test known to man could ever prove such a thing. Ellie knew her own love for her father directly and immediately. She didn't have to learn it from some scientific test.

There are things we know to be true that we don't know through empirical testing--the five senses-- but we do know through other ways. Science seems to give us true, or approximately true, information about the world, and it uses a technique that seems to be reliable, by and large. (Even this, though, is debated among philosophers of science.) However, science is not the only means of giving us true information about the world; its methodology limits it significantly.

One thing science cannot do, even in principle, is disprove the existence of anything. So when people try to use science to disprove the existence of God, they're using science illegitimately. They're misusing it, and this just makes science look bad.

The way many try to show God doesn't exist is simply by asserting it, but that's not proof. It isn't even evidence. Scientists sometimes get away with this by requiring that scientific law--natural law--must explain everything. If it can't explain a supernatural act or a supernatural Being then neither can exist. This is cheating, though.

Scientists haven't proven God doesn't exist; they've merely assumed it in many cases. They've foisted this truism on the public, and then operated from that point of view. They act as if they've really said something profound, when all they've done is given you an unjustified opinion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.str.org/articles/what-science-can-t-prove#.U1cZM1eqTyt

Burden of proof. Or Russell's teapot. Take your pick.

Also a strawman; no one in science claims that science proves God's nonexistence, nor do they claim that we'd need to do so in order to make atheism a viable philosophy. This quip takes aim at "people" using science to disprove God, without citing, well, anyone in particular. Maybe a misguided teenage blogger falls victim to this. None with any legitimacy would, though. And besides being an empirical impossibility to prove such a negative, proving nonexistence isn't the requisite level for a lack of belief in God's existence, just as it isn't with the unicorns the author cites.

Anyway, science isn't the only way to learn things about the world. Just the best way, because we can confirm it, repeat it, challenge it, adjust it, and it provides predictive power.

"We cannot, of course, disprove God, just as we can't disprove Thor, fairies, leprechauns and the Flying Spaghetti Monster." - Dawkins

Though personally, I wish science could prove Thor's existence.

Originally posted by Robtard
Make up your mind already.

You're the first poster to ever try and use my screen name as an insult. You get more originality points.

Nothing left to retort to. You were utterly confused at worse, or just being a pedantic ninny at best. <--- factual facts

You assume like I should automatically know who "Sorgo" was in here, when you were previously crying about having to make assumptions. Feel silly, feel silly now. Do you think you were important or something.

These are the facts: In your ignorance you bit off more than you could chew and you got mauled in return. Don't feel bad though, I'm known as "The Old Lion" around these parts, you're just a statistic. If anything take a positive out of it, you now know what a "qualifier" is; that's more than you knew yesterday.

Do you believe you mauled me? Oh dear. You've blown nothing but air, Robtard.

I'd ask you to back up what you've said here but, remember, we've gone through this already and, to be honest, I'm not the biggest fan of the sound crickets make.

You were thoroughly destroyed, even on your bad usage of qualifiers. Seriously, you were f*cking smashed and smashed by the most disliked, disrespect, and hated member of these boards.

I didn't have to make an assumption. It's why I asked, homeslice! No, I don't think I'm important, by any means. It's just that I'm a tad infamous here. If you didn't know me, it's not a big deal. However, my name is there and small search of the boards might have helped.

What that means? It means I have a sour reputation. Don't let that confuse you, though. If you do something moronic, I'll tear it (and you, summarily) apart.

Also, stop referencing "Chasing Amy." People like you shouldn't be allowed to make references to films I like.

Are you still ranting on how awesome you perceive yourself? Get some self-confidence, man.

Originally posted by Robtard
Ranting on how awesome you perceive yourself?
Originally posted by Robtard
Don't feel bad though, I'm known as "The Old Lion" around these parts, you're just a statistic.

http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/cut.gif

And you took that as being serious. You went full retard just there, man.

In case you're confused again and so it's perfectly clear, I literally made up that "old lion" bit as I typed it. Wouldn't want any more misunderstandings.

Originally posted by Robtard
And you took that as being serious. You went full retard just there, man.

In case you're confused again and so it's perfectly clear, I literally made up that "old lion" bit as I typed it. Wouldn't want any more misunderstandings.

Wait, I did? I don't remember ever taking it seriously. I thought it was lame. I'm assuming this means *you thought* I took you seriously?

Ouch. Another dagger. This isn't good, Robtard. You should probably stop responding.

Resorting to "no you" type of retorts shows a lack of imagination and wit. Shape up, man.

Though I'm a little flattered you're copying me, if we're being honest.

Originally posted by Robtard
Resorting to "no you" type of retorts shows a lack of imagination and wit. Shape up, man.

That's literally what just happened, though. You thought I was confused but it was you. I just thought it was funny. It's a cherry to your imbecilic sundae.

Do you honestly believe I'd exhaust any "imagination and wit" while talking to someone as puerile as yourself?

Man, you f*cked up again. This is a thing of beauty, relatively speaking.

I thought I told you to get interesting. But you are still just thinking everyone else is confused and only you understand. You really are a bore. C'mon you impressed me before, adopt a new tactic.

Originally posted by The Renegade
That's literally what just happened, though. You thought I was confused but it was you. I just thought it was funny. It's a cherry to your imbecilic sundae. Piling another "no you" type of retort on top of your previous "no you" type of retort isn't helping you at all, not at all.

Originally posted by Robtard
Piling another "no you" type of retort on top of your previous "no you" type of retort isn't helping you at all, not at all.

Why not an, "Okay, I'm sorry. I made yet another mistake and assumed you were serious and, in turn, responded seriously, stacking my irony?"

Maybe that's what you've been trying to say but pride's been distorting your capability to be civil. So, I accept your apology.

Originally posted by Dramatic Gecko
I thought I told you to get interesting. But you are still just thinking everyone else is confused and only you understand. You really are a bore. C'mon you impressed me before, adopt a new tactic.

No, not everyone. I'm not much for appealing to majorities, to be honest. I don't care if ten, thirty, sixty, whatever amount of people don't agree or don't get it. This is why we have things like "logic" and "reason."

Otherwise, people would just go around telling people who don't believe in God that they're confused, especially because "lots of people thought so." Those are the big things, though. This? This is just semantics.

Also, I'm boring? Like, are you supposed to be the pinnacle of what's interesting? You come in every few pages and either label me an idiot (what's already been said) or say I'm boring and not interesting (Worse: what's already been said by you) so go play in traffic.

Originally posted by The Renegade


No, not everyone. I'm not much for appealing to majorities, to be honest. I don't care if ten, thirty, sixty, whatever amount of people don't agree or don't get it. This is why we have things like "logic" and "reason."

Otherwise, people would just go around telling people who don't believe in God that they're confused, especially because "lots of people thought so." Those are the big things, though. This? This is just semantics.

Also, I'm boring? Like, are you supposed to be the pinnacle of what's interesting? You come in every few pages and either label me an idiot (what's already been said) or say I'm boring and not interesting (Worse: what's already been said by you) so go play in traffic.

***** I'm fantastic!
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-VeDQZ1xvryQ/ULimWksUNEI/AAAAAAAAAQE/D9tmgL4J2Y8/s400/jack+frost+ndjkasd.gif

Originally posted by The Renegade
Why not an, "Okay, I'm sorry. I made yet another mistake and assumed you were serious and, in turn, responded seriously, stacking my irony?"

Maybe that's what you've been trying to say but pride's been distorting your capability to be civil. So, I accept your apology.

Rewording your "no you" retorts won't help. But that's three times now you've copied me. Consider me fully flattered.

edit: went back; saw the cause of all of this. I said "calm down" to you. If you need, I can apologize for that. LMK.

Originally posted by Dramatic Gecko
***** I'm fantastic!
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-VeDQZ1xvryQ/ULimWksUNEI/AAAAAAAAAQE/D9tmgL4J2Y8/s400/jack+frost+ndjkasd.gif

Seriously, what the f*ck?

Originally posted by Digi

Burden of proof. Or Russell's teapot. Take your pick.


What you're telling me is that science can answer very few questions posed by religion.

Originally posted by Digi


Also a strawman; no one in science claims that science proves God's nonexistence, nor do they claim that we'd need to do so in order to make atheism a viable philosophy. This quip takes aim at "people" using science to disprove God, without citing, well, anyone in particular. Maybe a misguided teenage blogger falls victim to this. None with any legitimacy would, though.

Which means that if did find anyone in science claiming that science proves God's nonexistence, you would discredit them as having no legitimacy?


Originally posted by Digi

proving nonexistence isn't the requisite level for a lack of belief in God's existence


What is the requisite level for a lack of belief in God's existence, then?

Originally posted by Digi

science isn't the only way to learn things about the world.


Granted.

Originally posted by Digi

Just the best way, because we can confirm it, repeat it, challenge it, adjust it, and it provides predictive power.


Disagree, unless you make an allowance for subject-dependence or can explain how the scientific method can be used to educate us about the world of 2000 years ago, or even the world of 200 years ago.

I grant you science is REALLY good for a lot of things.

I DON'T see where science has such a great application for determining ancient historical events with any true authority.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Which means that if did find anyone in science claiming that science proves God's nonexistence, you would discredit them as having no legitimacy?


This question had one too many rum and cokes and is now loaded.

Originally posted by The Renegade
No, you did. You had to because he wasn't clear. It doesn't matter why. That's the way it is.

Stop projecting.



Just admit that you overreacted and have been behavior illogically my simple-minded friend. It will be easier on you.





Yeh I do.

Originally posted by The Renegade
Seriously, what the f*ck?

http://circabuffet.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/tumblr_m8b9dytbqc1qzg708.jpg

Originally posted by Robtard
"We cannot, of course, disprove God, just as we can't disprove Thor, fairies, leprechauns and the Flying Spaghetti Monster." - Dawkins

Though personally, I wish science could prove Thor's existence. To be fair though, Dawkins is a huge ass-reaming pedophile, and probably likes Twilight.

Originally posted by NemeBro
To be fair though, Dawkins is a huge ass-reaming pedophile, and probably likes Twilight.

http://forums.watchuseek.com/attachments/f71/1218449d1378888873-expert-help-needed-does-rado-diastar-look-good-duo7o.jpg

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
What you're telling me is that science can answer very few questions posed by religion.



Which means that if did find anyone in science claiming that science proves God's nonexistence, you would discredit them as having no legitimacy?




What is the requisite level for a lack of belief in God's existence, then?



Granted.



Disagree, unless you make an allowance for subject-dependence or can explain how the scientific method can be used to educate us about the world of 2000 years ago, or even the world of 200 years ago.

I grant you science is REALLY good for a lot of things.

I DON'T see where science has such a great application for determining ancient historical events with any true authority.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-fkAQJeW4ETg/U0BR2AII_oI/AAAAAAAAEBo/X_o5oaam3dU/s1600/burden+of+proof.png

http://static.gamespot.com/uploads/original/1334/13348536/2492426-0315068671-tumbl.gif

Originally posted by NemeBro
Stop projecting.



Just admit that you overreacted and have been behavior illogically my simple-minded friend. It will be easier on you.





Yeh I do.

Good lord, you people throw around words like "confusion," "logic," and others like it's confetti but don't really know what they mean, as shown here. Also, did you mean to say I was BEHAVING illogically?

You ought to stop patronizing me. Like your friend Dramatic Gecko, you've f*ck all to contribute and address about as much as you add to the conversation.

Easier on me? NemeBro, don't make me f*cking laugh.

Originally posted by The Renegade
Good lord, you people throw around words like "confusion," "logic," and others like it's confetti but don't really know what they mean, as shown here. Also, did you mean to say I was BEHAVING illogically?

You ought to stop patronizing me. Like your friend Dramatic Gecko, you've f*ck all to contribute and address about as much as you add to the conversation.

Easier on me? NemeBro, don't make me f*cking laugh.

Lol, its getting angry. But lets get one thing straight, I am not NemeBro's friend.

Originally posted by Dramatic Gecko
Lol, its getting angry. But lets get one thing straight, I am not NemeBro's friend.

I'm so glad we got that straight because, boy oh boy, was I ever being completely literal when I said he was your friend.

Are you one of those yappy little puppies that sit on the sideline, haphazardly trying to figure out who all of the "really good debaters" are so you can talk about that and then occasionally chime in, adding a dash of your simplistic, deficient perspective?

Originally posted by The Renegade
I'm so glad we got that straight because, boy oh boy, was I ever being completely literal when I said he was your friend.

Are you one of those yappy little puppies that sit on the sideline, haphazardly trying to figure out who all of the "really good debaters" are so you can talk about that and then occasionally chime in, adding a dash of your simplistic, deficient perspective?

No I argue in Versus Forums. That's where I thrive. I'm not giving my actual opinion in this thread because it doesn't interest me in the slightest. And I've changed my mind. You really suck. Stop defending yourself and attacking people like a child and argue your argument. If I'm getting to you that's sad because I'm just on here for lolz, and am an average debater at best (however that puts me leagues over quan heheh).

Originally posted by Dramatic Gecko
and am an average debater at best (however that puts me leagues over quan heheh).

There's simply no way I would've gathered that, had you not informed me.

Originally posted by Dramatic Gecko
argue your argument

http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/7844598.gif

Originally posted by The Renegade
There's simply no way I would've gathered that otherwise.

N'aw he still doesn't get it.

http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/jlaw-whtvr.gif

Originally posted by The Renegade
http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/jlaw-whtvr.gif

http://media.247sports.com/Uploads/Assets/277/565/565277.gif

After reading this thread I feel like I understand everything!!!

Originally posted by Bardock42
After reading this thread I feel like I understand everything!!!

You c*nt.

Sup?

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
What you're telling me is that science can answer very few questions posed by religion.

Not even close. Are you familiar with Russell's teapot?

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Which means that if did find anyone in science claiming that science proves God's nonexistence, you would discredit them as having no legitimacy?

On that specific line of thought, yes, I would. As it is, it's a strawman when talking about any credible atheist literature.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
What is the requisite level for a lack of belief in God's existence, then?

Utter lack of evidence. Do you believe that unicorns exist?

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Disagree, unless you make an allowance for subject-dependence or can explain how the scientific method can be used to educate us about the world of 2000 years ago, or even the world of 200 years ago.

It does both remarkably well. I could provide some resources to begin your reading.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
I DON'T see where science has such a great application for determining ancient historical events with any true authority.

And the Bible does?

Originally posted by Digi
...Utter lack of evidence. Do you believe that unicorns exist?...

Unicorns dancing in the spring time.

Originally posted by NemeBro
To be fair though, Dawkins is a huge ass-reaming pedophile, and probably likes Twilight.

Doesn't mean he can't be correct about some things.

The popular portrayal of Dawkins as an ass is a pet peeve of mine. He's amazingly compassionate. He just doesn't pull punches where he sees ignorance. And to be clear, it's not a pet peeve because he's my boy. It's a pet peeve because it's wrong. Christopher Hitchens was the acerbic ******* (awesomely so, imo) that everyone thinks Dawkins is. Dawkins is just passionate about a polarizing subject.

...

On a note related to BWR's strawman (detailed earlier), here's a book that is guilty of the same fallacy: http://www.amazon.com/dp/006223059X/?tag=saloncom08-20

The synopsis calls out those like Dawkins and Hitchens for making the claim that science disproves God, which they don't. I remember reading Dawkins's God Delusion and seeing his atheistic/theistic spectrum, where the final level of atheism - "I know there is no God" - was a category even Dawkins wouldn't put himself in. He admitted he was close to that category, but on intellectual integrity had to default to the next, slight less extreme, position.

One would think that a book purporting to refute someone would manage at least a cursory reading of their work. As it is, having read a vast amount of literature in the atheist community, the only ones I see invoking the "Science proving or disproving God" debate are theists. In fact, it's the most frequent rebuttal I encounter when people find out I'm an atheist. "Well, you can't prove a negative," or something similar. The misunderstanding of the position is epidemic.

Victor Stenger is perhaps the only respected atheist figure I've seen make the claim, but even that comes with a heavy set of contextual factors that make it a more reasonable position. His conclusion ends up amounting to "there's no evidence" rather than "there is proof of nonexistence." The misleading title of his book, "God: The Failed Hypothesis-How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist," turns out to be more a marketing tool than a thesis statement.

Originally posted by Bardock42
That it's full of wankers? And slags.

I know God is real because I love Him.

I know that dancing unicorns exist because I love them.

So, if you love something it becomes real?

We should all love superman.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I know that dancing unicorns exist because I love them.

So, if you love something it becomes real?

We should all love superman.

Even though he's a complete dick?

http://files.doobybrain.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/superman-is-a-jerk.jpg

https://itsjustsomerandomgeek.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/action_comics_176.jpg

https://itsjustsomerandomgeek.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/planestrainsandautomobiles0nz.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_XkOuDFvKfuE/TBnLNWdZbGI/AAAAAAAAADE/8gfytVWC1DA/s320/1296_4_079.jpg

Originally posted by Robtard
Even though he's a complete dick?

http://files.doobybrain.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/superman-is-a-jerk.jpg

https://itsjustsomerandomgeek.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/action_comics_176.jpg

https://itsjustsomerandomgeek.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/planestrainsandautomobiles0nz.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_XkOuDFvKfuE/TBnLNWdZbGI/AAAAAAAAADE/8gfytVWC1DA/s320/1296_4_079.jpg

That's just the "man" part of superman.

Change Superman to The Doctor and you're onto something.

That guy from 'House' is a dick too.

Originally posted by Robtard
That guy from 'House' is a dick too.

http://24.media.tumblr.com/4eebec8de694be1a3047b44a10fee5c9/tumblr_mmb6jjHTEp1rs1wg3o1_500.jpg

Originally posted by Digi
The popular portrayal of Dawkins as an ass is a pet peeve of mine. He's amazingly compassionate. He just doesn't pull punches where he sees ignorance. And to be clear, it's not a pet peeve because he's my boy. It's a pet peeve because it's wrong. Christopher Hitchens was the acerbic ******* (awesomely so, imo) that everyone thinks Dawkins is. Dawkins is just passionate about a polarizing subject.

...

On a note related to BWR's strawman (detailed earlier), here's a book that is guilty of the same fallacy: http://www.amazon.com/dp/006223059X/?tag=saloncom08-20

The synopsis calls out those like Dawkins and Hitchens for making the claim that science disproves God, which they don't. I remember reading Dawkins's God Delusion and seeing his atheistic/theistic spectrum, where the final level of atheism - "I know there is no God" - was a category even Dawkins wouldn't put himself in. He admitted he was close to that category, but on intellectual integrity had to default to the next, slight less extreme, position.

One would think that a book purporting to refute someone would manage at least a cursory reading of their work. As it is, having read a vast amount of literature in the atheist community, the only ones I see invoking the "Science proving or disproving God" debate are theists. In fact, it's the most frequent rebuttal I encounter when people find out I'm an atheist. "Well, you can't prove a negative," or something similar. The misunderstanding of the position is epidemic.

Victor Stenger is perhaps the only respected atheist figure I've seen make the claim, but even that comes with a heavy set of contextual factors that make it a more reasonable position. His conclusion ends up amounting to "there's no evidence" rather than "there is proof of nonexistence." The misleading title of his book, "God: The Failed Hypothesis-How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist," turns out to be more a marketing tool than a thesis statement.

Strawman: The Book.

I like it.

And agreed on Dawson. He catches a lot of flak.

Originally posted by Wonder Man
I know Jose is real because I love Him.

Awh, how sweet!

Originally posted by The Renegade
You c*nt.

Sup?

Nothing much, lying in bed, naked. What are you wearing?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Nothing much, lying in bed, naked. What are you wearing?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison


What? He came onto me!!!

Originally posted by Bardock42
What? He came onto me!!!

Very true.

Grab some paddles. Wallowing in desperation here.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Grab some paddles. Wallowing in desperation here.

The boat already sunk. We are all just playing in the life boat now.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
Strawman: The Book.

I like it.

And agreed on Dawson. He catches a lot of flak.

It's a shame that we've had to default to laughing trollishly at ignorance. In reality, it's sad that something so misguided could make it to print, but we'd quickly become depressed if we thought for long about it. I do the same thing...just enjoy it for the lulz...but I feel like there's a darker defense mechanism at work there as well.

Originally posted by Digi
It's a shame that we've had to default to laughing trollishly at ignorance. In reality, it's sad that something so misguided could make it to print, but we'd quickly become depressed if we thought for long about it. I do the same thing...just enjoy it for the lulz...but I feel like there's a darker defense mechanism at work there as well.

It has a name: Confirmation Bias.

It's everywhere.

Originally posted by Digi
The popular portrayal of Dawkins as an ass is a pet peeve of mine. He's amazingly compassionate. He just doesn't pull punches where he sees ignorance. Keep telling yourself that.

"If you're being raped in an elevator just press the button and escape. You're dumb if you're raped in an elevator."
- Richard Dawkins

Originally posted by Robtard
Doesn't mean he can't be correct about some things. I suspect he knows a lot about genetics.

Originally posted by The Renegade
Good lord, you people throw around words like "confusion," "logic," and others like it's confetti but don't really know what they mean, as shown here. Also, did you mean to say I was BEHAVING illogically?

You people? Throwing out racial slurs now?

I am perfectly well-aware what they mean, and no, I meant behavior illogically.



I couldn't patronize you without your help on the matter.



That you're upset is abundantly obvious, and tremendously satisfying.

I used to like Dawkins more, his twitter has made me reconsider.

What have you read, specifically?

I was referring to when he blew up on a woman who blogged that being propositioned in an elevator makes her uncomfortable, and she asks guys not to do that.

Originally posted by NemeBro
What have you read, specifically?

I was referring to when he blew up on a woman who blogged that being propositioned in an elevator makes her uncomfortable, and she asks guys not to do that.

I remember that incident as well. I don't have any specific instances, but his twitter is written in a way that makes me think of an ignorant 14 year old, and that makes me uncomfortable.

I don't doubt it. May check it when I get back on my main computer.

And Digi, I am in no way trying to discredit any of the perfectly valid work Dawson has done. I am simply pointing out that by any objective standard he's a poncey little ***** with micropenis.

There better have been a kitchen in that elevator.

Originally posted by Robtard
There better have been a kitchen in that elevator.

Are you planning on moving in?

no?

For the woman. Duh.

Originally posted by Robtard
no?

I see. Woman + kitchen = funny

I not chauvinistic enough to get that one off the bat.

To be fair, he forgot to add the comfort mat so that she wouldn't get sore cooking barefoot.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I see. Woman + kitchen = funny

I not chauvinistic enough to get that one off the bat. So this tagline doesn't ring a bell: "My wife...I think I'll keep her."

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I see. Woman + kitchen = funny

I not chauvinistic enough to get that one off the bat.

Work on it.

Originally posted by Robtard
Work on it.

Wait! I'm trying to become less of an a$$hole.

You're doing it wrong