Breaking news; the tea party is retarded

Smuel, you're an idiot.

Haven't I already said atheism is an official doctrine of buddhism? Therefore atheism is certainly not defined by a lack of religious behaviour.

It's a theological statement by definition, you twat. You, you, you Englishman!

 

At least it was more articulate than saying "Lame!!!". Also by the by, asking if you believe that something has no weight is not slander.

The core of my argument wasn't in anyway emotional, don't treat it as such.

Supernovas are repeatable, they happen all the time. Furthermore there's plenty of scientific evidence for heavy elements being produced by supernovas, reading the wikipedia article will tell you that much.

History and science are separate things, don't equate them. Furthermore no good historian accepts things at face value, there has to be evidence from multiple sources that the event occured (you could call it repeatable evidence). If there isn't sufficient evidence that an event occured, then yes it should be discredited. What's my source for this? All the people at my university who do history degrees.

Which is why electricity would not be canonically accepted as science until the phenonemon was repeated. Unique events require further investigation, but if they have been investigated and they are completely anomolous you do not base science upon them.

That's an oxymoron; you are saying you have no faith in science (because if you did, all your faith would not be in God) and yet you are saying it has credence ("belief as to the truth of something"). If you have no faith in science, as you must to have all your faith in God, you cannot believe it is true. Follow the syllogism:

• Faith does not necessitate belief.
  
• Belief does however necessitate faith (if you believe in something you also have faith in it as you are trusting that the knowledge other people are telling you is true, which you personally have no proof of unless you preform an experiment yourself - Faith: "belief that is not based on proof". This is the definition you have implied that you accept so far, and you have faith that other people's proof is correct - "'the evidence of things not seen'" - otherwise science could not possibly have credence to you unless you have done every experiment known to man yourself).
  
• If you believe in science, you have faith in science also, and therefore cannot have all your faith in God.

Furthermore "Faith in science is the same as faith in witchcraft" is not true, otherwise I would also have faith in witchcraft - which I don't. Don't say two things are the same when they aren't, you should at least say they are the same from my Christian perspective but you didn't which just makes you look like an idiot for making such sweeping statements that blatantly are incorrect.

Lastly, if you cannot respond to how religious events are repeatable, I will not respond to you either. I have asked three times, if you are selectively ignoring that which you don't want to respond to then you're not even worth the effort.

 

Either I'm on drugs, or Xyle has recently levelled up, because I'm finding his latest posts to be coherent and substantial. Relatively speaking.

That's like saying "I'm not a vegetarian, but I only eat vegetables." Only eating vegetables is what makes someone a vegetarian. Doing religious things is what makes someone religious. You are religious.

Religious.

This is not a religious activity. Okay, clearly you still haven't got it. The question is this:

For any given activity X, can you decide whether or not someone is atheist or religious by whether they are doing X? Consider:

X = "I attend church". Answer: They are religious.
X = "I attend concerts". Answer: Can't tell.
X = "I go to school". Answer: Can't tell.
X = "I say prayers every night". Answer: They are religious.
X = "I discuss religion on internet forums." Answer: Can't tell.
X = "I study self-help books in search of wisdom." Answer: Can't tell.
X = "I study science books in search of wisdom." Answer: Can't tell.
X = "I study the Qur'an in search of wisdom." Answer: They are religious.

The point is - THERE IS NO VALUE FOR X WHICH RESULTS IN THE ANSWER "THEY ARE ATHEIST". There are religious activities, and there are non-religious activities, but religious people do the non-religious activities too. However, no atheist does religious activities. Because atheism is not a religion.

I've heard this argument made before. But, you know, for something that isn't based on the rituals of religion, there certainly are a lot of Christian churches and prayer-books around. Frankly, if you would be content to get rid of all the churches and bibles and clergy in the world, and stop promoting prayer, and stop having religious gatherings, then I would have no problem with what remained of your religion.

This might be true, and ytzk says something similar when he's not frothing at the mouth, so sure, Buddhism isn't a religion. Hooray for Buddhism.

Erm... what? Judaism is a system of religiously motivated rules and rituals, but isn't a religion? It sounds like it's a perfect example of a religion.

Actually, I agree with this, because religion encompasses the behaviours rather than the belief. So technically, it would be possible to believe in God without being religious. But in practice I have never seen anyone do this successfully. Or perhaps I have, and I didn't realise. Then again, if someone is going to believe in God but live their entire life in a way that's indistinguishable from atheism, then that's absolutely fine by me.

- - - - - - - - - -

I disagree. Just because something stops being practiced, it doesn't mean it has to be replaced by a similar type of thing. Slavery has been abolished, but you can't really say that working in a factory is therefore a type of replacement slavery. Well, I guess you could say that, but it would be hyperbole. The fact is that widespread slavery is officially gone. Similarly, when religions are all gone, it doesn't mean that atheism has to be a new religion. It's perfectly possible for religions to die out without any replacement in kind.

Oh man. Seriously? Okay, here we go: You seem to have confused (dogmatic) atheism with (faith in) science. In fact (dogmatic) atheism has nothing to do with (faith in) science, and this is obviously true because (dogmatic) atheists existed before (faith in) science really got going.

You'll have to help me out here. I've heard other people make this argument before - something along the lines of "Science sucks the fun out of everything." Do you really believe this? I guess science took the fun out of burning random women as witches, but I don't see that as a great drawback. In what way has science ever made life suck by answering questions about it?

Well, the fact that humans generally have a well-developed sense of self would rather belie your point. If a sense of self caused a decrease in survival chances, it never would have evolved in the first place.

And yes, I realise that I'm begging the question with that argument. But since you believe in evolution too, I'm hoping you'll give me a pass.

I think this is a disingenuous claim. How many major theories have been overturned as a result of more recent discoveries? I mean really overturned. Einstein's theories were revolutionary, but they didn't displace Newton's - his are still used all the time in engineering because they are still perfectly correct on a human scale. What about Dawkins' selfish gene theory replacing Darwin's evolution? Even though it was a brand new way of thinking about the issue, it didn't replace evolution in any way - it was a refinement.

Because what evidence could possibly be found that would overturn a currently accepted theory? Modern science has made millions of observations which fit perfectly with current theories. In order, say, for some kind of "spritual plane" to be discovered, which suddenly explains consciousness and the existence of ghosts, it would have to exist in a way that meant it had been completely undetectable until now, and yet somehow explains everything we experience in a better way than our current theories. This is one of those things that is technically possible, but in practice... really? It's not dogmatic to say that this would never happen. It's realistic.

This is a bit of an odd argument. Your example is that General Relativity is so widely accepted that anything challenging it needs a lot of support. Isn't that good? And of course - if the latest neutrino evidence holds up, then the theory will be refined. Note - refined, not overturned. Just as Newton's theories still work at sub-luminal speeds, so Einstein's will work for... erm... whatever it is they work for right now. The theory isn't going to be completely discarded just because exceptions are found.

- - - - - - - - -

Huh? Like eating wafers is an official doctrine of Catholicism, therefore eating wafers is not defined by wafer-eating behaviour? Your argument is perverse. Also, Xyle says that Buddhism isn't a religion, so ner.

Firstly, theology is not the same as religion. Secondly, it's a statement of exclusion, not inclusion. Thirdly, thy mother's oral frenelum count regularly exceeds three.

 

Get off the drugs Smuel.

 

Just a heads up. When you guys step back and look at yourselves, it ain't gonna be pretty.

 

Just a heads up. When I'm rolling in bitches as a result of my cleverly argued forum posts, you're gonna look pretty silly.

 

Drugs.

You need just as much conviction to honestly say something doesn't exist as you do to say it does. Diametrically opposed statements tend to require equal belief, regardless of how that belief comes to be. For a theist, their proof may vary from "God exists because there's not a plausible explanation for the universe I see yet," to "God exists because my holy book says so." An atheist's proof may vary from "I won't rule out the existence of a God, but I don't see how it fits in the universe I know," to "God doesn't exist because it (or whatever sex God is) doesn't need to be a part of this universe for everything to work." There are many in-between variations of differing levels of conviction, with opposites. Slavery is a bad example - look at China's industrial work force. Any sweat shop. Hell, look at the difference in income between a skilled laborer and the president of the company that laborer works for. The president makes money off of other people's work, so their own work contributes relatively little to what they make. International banks tend to make money off of money put into them by investing it, because now it's their money (but you can take out what you deposited whenever you want). The Federal Reserve is another one, consistently making at least the U.S.'s money worthless. That's modern slavery. Also, indentured servants were phased out not too long ago. I'd ask for an example of a religion dying out and not being replaced by another religion, but I'm certain you'd answer "Atheism." However, it doesn't work out because I don't know of any religion being entirely destroyed by atheism. You could probably show me a few that have.

There were (agnostic) atheists around the same time, and to you, these are (no duh) atheists. There's more agnostics than dogmatics, as dogmatics say things that are perceived as arrogant and opinionated, but they think are unchallengeable - and may be based on assumption rather than evidence (meaning it's a similar mindset to anyone dogmatically religious). Given that (i.e. what I just said {because I guess you don't like using definitions}), I agree and I no longer oppose your point, but science or no, it's a haughty mind-set.
However, I don't see you explaining why you didn't correct me until your previous post in your meaning of confusion vs. synonymity. Bear in mind that I can't read yours. Unless you're getting me back for earlier in the thread.

Of course! I don't mean science sucks the fun out of everything, but I'd rather keep certain things mysterious. Knowing how things work or exactly what they do is fine and dandy, but in my life I haven't seen science make things objectively suck (though it doesn't mean it can't happen). However, when it turns out the answer to something so mysterious turns out to be so simple it's obvious, it's boring (and possibly depressing/frightening). Given moving parts, complexity is a drawback - more parts means more chances of failure. I already see life as organic machines with organic computers driving the more complex organism's thought. We already know emotions can be aroused by electrical impulses from a controlled external source - knowing how thought patterns are made will lead to knowing how to make those, meaning free will may be in jeopardy (there's already technology to allow emotion-stimulating microchips attached to our skulls to make people permanently happy no matter what's going on). In short, I don't believe the quote you wrote in your post.

People with my neurology have more white matter than grey (in proportion). Grey has been linked to socializing and keeping track of subtle nuances in people's speech, body language, etc. White is linked to analyzing information, concentration, and perception of external stimuli. Less socialization would mean less of a defined self as opposed to other people, and more information processing can allow for greater precision in tasks, i.e. a single-minded worker/artist/anything dedicated to perfection in whatever they decide to do. There's less of us on the planet in relation to other people, but there are quite a few famous ones throughout history.
Yes, there are drawbacks - 65% (on average) more neurons in the PFC compared to a standard human can cause hypersensitivity to any stimuli, and the presence of so many white matter neurons overwhelms social development and ironically, can hinder total-body coordination. Also, if I don't immediately recognize the practicality of anything, I get bored.
However, what are the plusses? "Photographic" memory, encyclopedic information retention, childlike curiosity for my entire life, and in person - sexy enigma.

My neurology makes more sense for the start of humanity rather than our current lifestyles, just like anxiety used to be a survival response when in flight of something capable of killing you.

I never said "wrong" meant completely false. If you've taken university tests or even high school tests (written, of course - multiple choice is for chumps), you can get credit for your comprehension of most of an issue and still get points off when something isn't completely right - or you can get partial credit for a well worded wrong answer. If a refinement is made, doesn't that still mean the previously accepted theory was missing something? Wouldn't that mean it wasn't completely right? Given the amount of things we don't know, there are a lot of things that have refinements in waiting. Now, as for completely overturned;

Einstein's Universe (aka Static Universe) theory - the Big Bang model destroyed it after the background radiation was found.
Gravitational lensing - because light is negligibly refracted until the corona of a star hits it, or if it was to circle an event horizon, and not refracted exponentially as it is closer or further from a star.
The expanding Earth theory - Plate Tectonics took over.
Spontaneous generation.
Phlogiston theory - that all combustible materials had the element phlogiston in them, allowing them to combust.
Blank Slate theory - that no child is born with innate personality characteristics, however, genes play a role in base personality structure.
Luminiferous Ether.
Also, Phrenology.

Sure, those theories that were overturned completely look silly now...but they used to be very widely accepted, and it wasn't silly to think they had a place in our world.

I gave a decent amount of examples above that counter this. What makes you think people are less fallible at this point in time?

General relativity is based on one special thing - that nothing can surpass light speed unless it started out faster than light, but even then, it can't have positive mass - which any neutrino has. It also can't be detected in any way because it's imperceptible via traveling back in time constantly - but neutrinos can be detected and they only travel forward, because they're their own anti-particle, like a photon. If you've refined a theory so that the math coincides with something faster than your universal speed limit, you might as well base a new theory off of the old one, like Einstein did with Newton's macroscopic physics. There remains the possibility that muon neutrinos travel through tesseracts and therefore aren't technically faster, but this again means whenever they go somewhere, they interact directly with four-dimensional space and their shortest journey is not a straight line in 3 dimensions, meaning a need for a new theory that may involve making super-luminal speeds feasible for the rest of us. Now, I won't go over the entire part of the thread to see where I specifically said "completely overturned," but if I did say that, it was a hyperbole because I don't put 100% certainty behind it, but it's possible - and I'm sure you can find it if I said it.

 

Query: If I didn't want to mess with atheists, why am I arguing with one?

Anyhow, the point of my argument was that all or most of the major religions could claim that they are not religions in one manner or another, so how are we to define what is and is not Religion? It is rather difficult to argue the question of whether or not atheism is a religion when there is no established parameters for defining the term "religion".

Note: using the term "religious activities" to define "religion" is a circular argument because "religious" is derived from "religion".

Of course not. Its role was the purely emotional: A sense of affront that started with ? moved into !? and ended with !!
==========

Win!

=========

::whiny, fake voice:: But I am not a vegetarian! I only eat vegetables because I don't know how to hunt and none of the hunters will trade with me. I'd eat meat IF I had some! ::end fake voice::

Vegetarianism is a deliberate Choice. Only eating vegetables is a product of circumstance. Being religious is a Choice. Doing religious activities does not make you religious: Many people go to church because they were raised to do so. But they never made a choice to become religious and after they leave the church service, there is no indication that they ever even walked into a church because they do everything that everyone else does. Their going-to-church is nothing more than a byproduct of the circumstances of being raised to do so.

 

I get it now. Xyle is actually HK-47 - I anticipate he will soon prefer calling us meatbags.

 

HK-47? Is that a who or a what?

 

A covert assassin droid that has a cover as a protocol droid in Star Wars: KOTR and KOTR 2.

You've been exposed, spark plug. You might want to start killing everybody.

 

So "meatbags" would be referring to the fact we are organic as opposed to the concept that one is all brawn and no brain.

However, "bags of water" or carbon-lifeforms would be more appropriate, don't you think?

Anyways, I am a pacifist (until attacked), so why would i kill?

 

1) Yes, "meatbag" refers to our (meaning anyone not you) skin being a bag, and what's inside as meat. A meat head would qualify as your other concept.

2) Perhaps. But, the writers figured it'd be more derogatory (and humorous) for any organic in the game to be called "Meatbag," as opposed to their given (and known) name.

3) Cover blown. No way out but through the meatbags.

 

And I have given you answers, just not in the form that you desire:

"And the Lord said, If ye had faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye might say unto this sycamine tree, Be thou plucked up by the root, and be thou planted in the sea; and it should obey you." Luke 17:6

If faith is trust, belief or credence, why does Jesus say that having Faith the size of the smallest seed gives one the such power? There are many who have beliefs, trust, and give credence to scripture who cannot perform miracles.

Assuming that you are correct, who is to say that a cover is needed? Wouldn't it be easier to stay in space and use Earth's satellites to access the internet?

 

If all you need is faith then do me a miracle (waits for the out of context quote). I want to see an awesome miracle right now. Go on, solve world hunger through faith.

I'm sure you'll give me the answer "Displaying a miracle to the faithless in order to make them believe defeats the purpose of faith" or in regards to some grand miracle that you "are just a humble, imperfect servant of God and are so are incapable of producing such a feat". If these aren't going to be your answers then shoot, but they really are the typical responses in this situation. They are also both highly convenient.

Besides, you've again dodged some of my previous points. Given the syllogism I laid out for you and the arguments I stipulated, can you say unequivocally that your faith is entirely in God?

I've also noticed your "win"; you misquoted me saying that...

When I actually said...

Notice the comma, not a period. I never once said your what you think I did as a statment without further qualifying what I meant. This was also in the context of...

The third, earlier quote strongly implies that what I was talking about was seemingly unique events with reference tp the second, later quote - events that aren't truly unique and can upon further study be repeated. You effectively removed my argument from its context and manipulated it to make it seem like I was conceding to you, which in fact I was not. You even misquoted me to suit your needs, which is a pathetic way to attempt to win an argument. Hence, no "win".

 

Why should I? Will filling everybody's bellies bring them to closer God?

Nope, wrong reasons.

Fact is, I prayed for the Great Recession. You see, when people have full bellies, full bank accounts and are full of themselves, they don't need God. As prosperity grows, people tend to fall from faith as they come to love money instead of God. Sure, I lost my job, was hungry for a month or two, and had to move back in with my parents in a state that I didn't want to live in as a result of this Great Recession (my move resulted in me not posting here for a while), but God's will is being done.

The problem that you have Jojobobo is that all you see is your own desires. You see hunger as bad because it is the failure to fulfill your desire for food. Hunger is good because fasting is good. When a diabetic fasts, their body responses in such a manner than they become healthier. There are countless benefits that science has discovered that fasting provides. Many of the things that you believe to be good, aren't as good as you think that they are. Therefore, any miracle that you want will not be a miracle that I could perform because any miracle that you ask for will be evil, and the miracles that I do perform, you will not see as miracles.

"Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away." 1 Corinthians 13:8

Science describes the world as it currently is. God has the power to alter the laws of the universe in any way he wants, so if he so choose, he could render countless amounts of science as invalid by restructuring reality.

I notice the word "results" in that second quote. Results aren't events, rather they are the measurements of an event. Therefore, as I was talking about events and not measurements, the quote doesn't apply. And you are right, anomalous results should be ignored because not all measurements are measured accurately. But that doesn't mean that the event is ignored.

For example, the measurement of a particle that seems to be moving faster than light doesn't discredit the fact that the particle moved. The particle moving is the event, the speed measured is the result.

Spontaneous combustion is a term that describes a result (a measurement of time) and as a theory is discredited, but the event (the fact that a corpse was found burned to crisp without burning the surrounding upholstry) is still valid. The events of supposed "spontaneous" combustions creates a mystery that should not be ignored. Just because there are luducris explanations for things doesn't discredit the events, only the explanations.

(When reading about spontaneous combustion, I notice that the temperatures used by skeptics tend to be the temperature at which flesh burns, however, the temperature that they should be considering is the temperature at which flesh turns to charcoal, which is a lesser temperature.)

 

Yeah that's right, fuck the starving in Africa. How very Christian of you.

Wishing evil upon people, also very Christain. Jesus fed the five thousand and you want people to starve, how nice.

You have no fucking idea what I do and do not do. I give to charity, and at all times try and improve the lives of people around me. What do you do? Wish pestilence on other people, well done.

You clearly have mental difficulties.

You measure events, you get results. You knew exactly what I meant but you're splitting hairs and trying to mask the fact you were being a disingenuous prick- in fact you've even misquoted me again. I can't even have an honest argument with you, yet I suppose you'll tell me God approves of you lying for your own ends. I have great respect for Christians and Christianity in general, but none for you and as a person you disgust me. I have nothing more to say to you.

 

Knew that you would call me evil. God doesn't feed the hungry African child with miracles and people call God evil. Why shouldn't I who is less than Him be called evil as well? (Matthew 10:24-25)

You gave money to the poor; that is good. You told me that you give money to the poor; that is evil. You have exchanged the heavenly reward for the self glory of believing yourself to be good. No one is good. We are all evil. Now we, being evil, deserve death and damantion. God, being good, offers salvation to the sinner.
Death comes for all because God ordained that we die because of our sin. If God has decreed death to be our fate, how then can it be evil? It is evil to wish that people be damned, not that they die. It is better to suffer in poverty and gain heaven than it is to live a life of bounty and gain hell.

I believe in the power of a creator over his creation and you believe me to be mad? God created the world and has authority over its very fabric, and you believe that because I believe that I am crazy? I guess you missed the thread that ended up in the folly section because I embraced that label. No point in going over it again.

 

The difference between you and I is that, when I say I'll see you in Hell, I know I'll be greeted by all my friends. You're just going to be yelling in a corner, getting probed with Hitler.

 

Are you sure that they're your friends? Do you know anyone who would actually reduce their standard of living for you? I have seen the type of friends that the world offers, and I all see is bunch of jackals fighting over their next meal. Taking instead of giving. Hating instead of loving. Maybe you got lucky and have a true friend that puts up with your bullshit and helps you even when you forgot their birthday (or some equilavent), but true friends are hid to find and even more difficult to become.

If you do have someone is who is a true friend, you won't find them in hell with you because they will be in heaven. (Not because of their good works but because only those who empowered by God could endure another's BS).