So that's it for the election. - Page 41

Nirgon · #**401** 10-19-2012, 06:21 PM

Lucky · #**402** 10-19-2012, 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alarti0001 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Back-up this claim or be labled a moron.

Orruar · #**403** 10-19-2012, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alarti0001 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

No your modifiers are describing your word. Atheism is without modifier of course Positive and Negative make the word change.

Denying the belief of god as rational is not positive atheism, saying that god absolutely does exist without evidence would be positive atheism.

Atheism is scientific because to be an atheist you gather information and make a decision based on that information or lack thereof. This information can be tested and evaluated by your peers, and you draw a conclusion. Atheism is simply saying there is no logical reason to belief in a god or creator with the information available. Science has not been able to 100% disprove god yet so until then it is not logical to say i am positive there is no god.

The above method is an example of the scientific method in use. Which is why atheism is scientific. Anyone who says they are atheist without going through this method isn't a real atheist. They fit into one of those modified categories.

Try Logic instead of reason then.

No application of the scientific method would produce reasoning such as: "If there is no proof that A exists, then A does not exist"

Science simply isn't interested in things for which there is no evidence, since it is impossible to perform any kind of experiments to validate any hypotheses.

And agnostics don't believe that man is somehow incapable of ever proving or disproving the extensive of God. Simply that in our current state of knowledge and understanding about the universe, that we have insufficient evidence to make that kind of determination. Sounds a lot more like science than atheism.

Atheists have far more in common with other people of faith than they'd like to admit.

Orruar · #**404** 10-19-2012, 06:35 PM

extensive -> existence

Ryba · #**405** 10-19-2012, 06:38 PM

Obama turned out to be just another politician. He overpromised and underdelivered...just like everyone else. So why all the hatred?

A president with an uncooperative congress is not on his own capable of getting the U.S. into the imbroglio it's in. It really doesn't take much intelligence to notice that none of the problems we face--recession/unemployment, war/security, healthcare--are best described on a trend line that is not book-ended in convenient 4-year chunks that correspond with the term of your least-favorite president. Obama, like Bush, presides at the juncture of multiple clusterfucks. How can you not see that?

It really makes you question what is fueling the high-octane vitriol leveled at Obama. Did you think presidents prevent recessions on their own? How do you muster such a passionate dislike for a guy that is at worst, lame, at best, not shitting the bed like W?

If you haven't read this, you should. If your brain is not clogged with poo and bias, it should make you pause before you criticize someone with vastly more world knowledge than you, i.e. the POTUS. Short read, give it a shot.

http://m.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/02/daniel-ellsberg-limitations-knowledge

Ryba · #**406** 10-19-2012, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ryba [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It really doesn't take much intelligence to notice that none of the problems we face--recession/unemployment, war/security, healthcare--are best described on a trend line that is not book-ended in convenient 4-year chunks that correspond with the term of your least-favorite president.

Sorry for the double negative in an already confusing sentence.

Lucky · #**407** 10-19-2012, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ryba [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Obama turned out to be just another politician. He overpromised and underdelivered...just like everyone else. So why all the hatred?

It really makes you question what is fueling the high-octane vitriol leveled at Obama. Did you think presidents prevent recessions on their own? How do you muster such a passionate dislike for a guy that is at worst, lame, at best, not shitting the bed like W?

You can argue that he isn't shitting the bed like W (I'd sa he is), but overall he's just smearing W's shit around after he said he would clean it up.

Alarti0001 · #**408** 10-19-2012, 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Orruar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

No application of the scientific method would produce reasoning such as: "If there is no proof that A exists, then A does not exist"

Science simply isn't interested in things for which there is no evidence, since it is impossible to perform any kind of experiments to validate any hypotheses.

And agnostics don't believe that man is somehow incapable of ever proving or disproving the extensive of God. Simply that in our current state of knowledge and understanding about the universe, that we have insufficient evidence to make that kind of determination. Sounds a lot more like science than atheism.

Atheists have far more in common with other people of faith than they'd like to admit.

Science ventures out into the unknown everyday. Hence the term scientific discovery. Science would try to solve a question, a question like.... how was the universe created. The god option would be a path to test.

Sorry you failed so hard there. Agnostics believe that the divine is unknowable.

Nirgon · #**409** 10-19-2012, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nirgon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Bout sums it all up

Orruar · #**410** 10-19-2012, 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alarti0001 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Science ventures out into the unknown everyday. Hence the term scientific discovery. Science would try to solve a question, a question like.... how was the universe created. The god option would be a path to test.

Sorry you failed so hard there. Agnostics believe that the divine is unknowable.

Science ventures into the unknown, but it does not make negative propositions based upon lack of evidence. It makes propositions and tests those propositions. But it does not state that if a proposition is untestable, then it must be false. It makes no claims under such conditions.

And agnostics believe the divine is unknowable based upon current knowledge. We still have billions of years of evolution/discovery ahead of us. There may be a few, but not many, agnostics who believe that the divine will be forever unknowable. Most simply believe that we don't understand the divine based upon our current knowledge, but that this knowledge is not unattainable ever.

Of course, the definition of divine is not a constant. If we found that a certain entity had created this universe for his own purposes, and had complete control over this universe, we would consider him divine. But perhaps in his realm, his reality, he is subject to certain physical laws and is limited in power. Could it not be possible that he was created by some other entity?