If you believe in god, you're an idiot...

[Henini]

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

Stalin? He didn't kill people while shouting "I'm doing this for atheism!" afaik, but.. he was eradicating the Church to allow for communism.

Now I agree that Communism <> Atheism, but I think your claims above cannot be true. There are far too many human beings for that 'never' to happen.

http://rainbowstalin13.ytmnd.com/

I said that is wasn't done in the name of atheism. I never said that non religious people didn't kill each other or do any kind of atrocities.

[Boggwin Bramblefoot]

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

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory

Number five as it applies to scientific theory.

Essential criteria:

The defining characteristic of a scientific theory is that it makes falsifiable or testable predictions. The relevance and specificity of those predictions determine how potentially useful the theory is. A would-be theory that makes no predictions that can be observed is not a useful theory. Predictions not sufficiently specific to be tested are similarly not useful. In both cases, the term "theory" is hardly applicable.

In practice a body of descriptions of knowledge is usually only called a theory once it has a minimum empirical basis, according to certain criteria:

* It is consistent with pre-existing theory, to the extent the pre-existing theory was experimentally verified, though it will often show pre-existing theory to be wrong in an exact sense.
* It is supported by many strands of evidence, rather than a single foundation, ensuring it is probably a good approximation, if not totally correct.

Pay particular attention to the second piece of criteria needed to be met to be classified as a theory.

Hahaha. WIKI RULZ.

[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory"]

Why do you keep defining Theory? Is that your argument against the multitude of things I presented?

[Boggwin Bramblefoot]

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

I said that is wasn't done in the name of atheism. I never said that non religious people didn't kill each other or do any kind of atrocities.

I think you hit the nail on the head...PEOPLE do these things. The ones that are doing those things and claiming to be Christian are not really Christians...therefore you cannot say that they represent Christianity in the matter. That is like saying that fireman are evil, mean people because a man dressed as a fireman went on a killing spree and raped a woman. Never-mind the fact that he wasn't truly a fireman...just one pretending to be.

Talk about fallacious.

[nilbog]

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

I said that is wasn't done in the name of atheism. I never said that non religious people didn't kill each other or do any kind of atrocities.

I'm not usually one to quote wikipedia, but I also don't know French history that well.

Another anti-clerical uprising was made possible by the installment of the Revolutionary Calendar on 24 October. Hébert's and Chaumette's atheist movement initiated a religious campaign in order to dechristianize society. The program of dechristianization waged against Catholicism, and eventually against all forms of Christianity, included the deportation or execution of clergy; the closing of churches; the rise of cults and the institution of a civic religion; the large scale destruction of religious monuments; the outlawing of public and private worship and religious education; the forced abjurement of priests of their vows and forced marriages of the clergy; the word "saint" being removed from street names; and the War in the Vendée. The enactment of a law on 21 October 1793 made all suspected priests and all persons who harbored them liable to death on sight.

Did these people kill in the name of atheism?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reign_of_Terror

[Hauling]

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

Hahaha. WIKI RULZ.

[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory"]

Why do you keep defining Theory? Is that your argument against the multitude of things I presented?

Would you rather I quote conservapedia instead where they consider science a philosophy instead of the method it is? What's wrong with wikipedia? I'd say it's a fair shot more reliable source of information than the bible. Wikipedia is constantly updated by contemporary, living people. I can see who made the edits. I can check their credentials. I can check their sources. Can I say that about the bible?

You have presented nothing and that's the point. You said so yourself when you said you cannot prove there is a god.

I offer you the definition of a theory, because you misrepresented what a theory actually is. Though I will hand it to you, if it's your goal to beat this argument through attrition rather than presenting a logical case. You'll probably succeed.

[soup]

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

Hahaha. WIKI RULZ.

[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory"]

Why do you keep defining Theory? Is that your argument against the multitude of things I presented?

It's to continue to demonstrate you have no clue what you're talking about.

Hint: theories do not graduate to laws. They refer to completely different things. Theory is the top of the food chain in regard to what it references. Gravity is theory too, but no one ever pulls the "it's just a THEORY!" card on gravity, lol.

[Boggwin Bramblefoot]

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

Would you rather I quote conservapedia instead where they consider science a philosophy instead of the method it is? What's wrong with wikipedia? I'd say it's a fair shot more reliable source of information than the bible. Wikipedia is constantly updated by contemporary, living people. I can see who made the edits. I can check their credentials. I can check their sources. Can I say that about the bible?

You have presented nothing and that's the point. You said so yourself when you said you cannot prove there is a god.

I offer you the definition of a theory, because you misrepresented what a theory actually is. Though I will hand it to you, if it's your goal to beat this argument through attrition rather than presenting a logical case. You'll probably succeed.

So this is to make a point regarding my remark about science being a religion? Fine I misspoke regarding the word theory. I am glad you finally decided to argue a point ITT. To bad your point has nothing to do with the several rebuttals to your original arguments. You know...the ones you could not argue against other than to say...eventually science will prove it (maybe not now, but in the future.) Wow, you guys sure did beat me down on that whole science is a religion thing...haha. I am glad you guys could find something you can feel you "won" on. Now what about "Closed System", "True Christians not killing in Christianity's name", "The bible verses" someone wanted explained...etc?

[Slathar]

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

So this is to make a point regarding my remark about science being a religion? Fine I misspoke regarding the word theory. I am glad you finally decided to argue a point ITT. To bad your point has nothing to do with the several rebuttals to your original arguments. You know...the ones you could not argue against other than to say...eventually science will prove it (maybe not now, but in the future.) Wow, you guys sure did beat me down on that whole science is a religion thing...haha. I am glad you guys could find something you can feel you "won" on. Now what about "Closed System", "True Christians not killing in Christianity's name", "The bible verses" someone wanted explained...etc?

burden of proof is on you, not us. you've proven nothing except that you don't understand what a theory is and are insufferably smug about being stupid.

please continue entertaining us kiddo [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Boggwin Bramblefoot]

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

Would you rather I quote conservapedia instead where they consider science a philosophy instead of the method it is? What's wrong with wikipedia? I'd say it's a fair shot more reliable source of information than the bible. Wikipedia is constantly updated by contemporary, living people. I can see who made the edits. I can check their credentials. I can check their sources. Can I say that about the bible?

You have presented nothing and that's the point. You said so yourself when you said you cannot prove there is a god.

I offer you the definition of a theory, because you misrepresented what a theory actually is. Though I will hand it to you, if it's your goal to beat this argument through attrition rather than presenting a logical case. You'll probably succeed.

Maybe this will explain about wiki...I found this online.

A vast majority of the responses on Y.A. use wikipedia as a source. Do they not realize a lot of the information on their website is incorrect/false? At the college level, professors will not except quotes from wikipedia. In general, have people become so lazy that internet searches are all about the first hit/result? Why use a source that in many cases is not credible?

P.S. if you didn't realize anyone can add information on wikipedia.

[soup]

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

So this is to make a point regarding my remark about science being a religion? Fine I misspoke regarding the word theory. I am glad you finally decided to argue a point ITT. To bad your point has nothing to do with the several rebuttals to your original arguments. You know...the ones you could not argue against other than to say...eventually science will prove it (maybe not now, but in the future.) Wow, you guys sure did beat me down on that whole science is a religion thing...haha. I am glad you guys could find something you can feel you "won" on. Now what about "Closed System", "True Christians not killing in Christianity's name", "The bible verses" someone wanted explained...etc?

Disproving the bible makes as much sense as disproving The Lord of the Rings.

Prove Mordor isn't real. Go ahead.

Oh, wait, that's right. It's not possible to prove a negative.