Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]
91
General Religious Discussion / Re: velkyn, strong atheism
« Last post by velkyn on December 04, 2016, 04:45:03 PM »
Would you like me to start my own thread?  None has left.  I'm going to.  Look for How Atheist Shift the Burden of Proof.  I'll post it in Chatter.  I'm mostly doing it out of respect for velkyn.  She shouldn't have been singled out.  I honestly wish I had done this much sooner.
Don't bring me into this again. I have no problem in "being singled out"; your actions have no benefit to me. 
92
Science / Re: "The Case AGAINST Dark Matter"
« Last post by Mr. Blackwell on December 04, 2016, 04:40:30 PM »
Dark matter is just the new aether

Eventually, maybe, scientists will discover that the observable universe is expanding in direct proportion to our conscious understanding of our observations of the universe expanding. The more we see the bigger it gets. How can you separate the observer from the experiment?
If there is some debate that the universe is expanding faster and faster I haven't seen it
It seems to be widely agreed that not only is the universe is expanding it's expansion is accelerating
It's the phenomenon of accelerated expansion that needs explaining, dark energy is an explanation

Stacy McGaugh just explained that there is no need and no room for dark matter as an explanation for how the universes expansion is accelerating. So, now they will need to look at some of the other explanations or try to debunk Stacy's observations.
93
Science / Re: "The Case AGAINST Dark Matter"
« Last post by none on December 04, 2016, 03:46:26 PM »
Dark matter is just the new aether

Eventually, maybe, scientists will discover that the observable universe is expanding in direct proportion to our conscious understanding of our observations of the universe expanding. The more we see the bigger it gets. How can you separate the observer from the experiment?
If there is some debate that the universe is expanding faster and faster I haven't seen it
It seems to be widely agreed that not only is the universe is expanding it's expansion is accelerating
It's the phenomenon of accelerated expansion that needs explaining, dark energy is an explanation
94
Chatter / Re: "Seven Futuristic Cities That Could Define the World of Tomorrow"
« Last post by eh! on December 04, 2016, 02:35:00 PM »
......or the new dark age.
95
Where does it say you are evil if you don't follow those rules?  It's not in that reply.
Sure it is. It is understood. Commands are to be followed and those who don't get hell.

Regards
DL

No sweetie those that don't believe go to hell.  You can get saved and not follow 1 god damn rule in the bible but go to heaven.

The fact is it does not say you are evil if you don't follow the golden rule.  It doesn't.  It is understood you are a sinner not evil. 

Maybe you should define evil at this point. 

If you are going to use the bible to disprove god then you are required to prove it is the word of god.
The only requirement I put on myself is to tell the truth, as I know it.

Evil is well defined in the dictionary and I do not plan to rewrite it's definition.

Regards
DL

Okay then.  The bible is not a reliable source for truth.  You have to exist to be evil.  Even if you use the bible there is no where in there that says God must obey his own rules.  He's god and can do whatever he wants because he holds our tiny little lives in his hands, ugh!

Truth is universal.  If it's only true to you it's useless to me or anyone else.

Putting words into a bible verse that's not there,evil, is no way to claim you have incontrovertible proof of anything much less the morality of god.

I am not arguing the wording of the bible.

I am arguing that the God Yahweh is immoral because he does not follow the Golden Rule.

If you think the Golden Rule to be a worthy moral tenet, then you should see as evil any who do not practice it.

Regards
DL
96
Defining evil, eh? Don't all religious folks know that one? Surely it is is disobeying their particular god, isn't it? After all, most religions talk about their god as being the embodiment[1] of goodness (omnibenevolent) so the antithesis is disobeying that god.

Now, I am quite prepared to discuss the 'is a thing good because god commanded it' versus 'od commanded it because it is good separately from god' which is an interesting discussion but the basic thing is that god is defined as all good and therefore, whatever he commands is godm by definition.
 1. If one can speak like this of a disembodied mind!

To the brain dead, indeed.

Others with active minds will follow scriptures and judge God and when they do, if they have morality in mind, will see God for the immoral prick that he is shown to be.

 1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.

If a believer tests Yahweh's morality, and does not condemn him, that just shows how a religion can damage ones moral sense.

Regards
DL

 
97
General Religious Discussion / Re: velkyn, strong atheism
« Last post by albeto on December 04, 2016, 12:09:38 PM »
Just because I don't agree with you does not make me confused.

True enough. I totally agree with this. However, in this case, I think you are confused about the topic. I think that explains your awkward definitions, your overall argument, and your inconsistency now at the very end (with regard to agreeing with jetson, but with weird restrictions).

 
Quote
No it did not make a difference because you are comparing a dress to atheism and I consider that a terrible analogy.   Not confused about that.  I firmly think it's a terrible analogy.

That would be a terrible analogy! I'm not comparing, but modifying the concept of a dress with the color blue.

Is it your position that strong atheism is completely different than atheism? Somewhat different?

Quote
What does complicate mean albeto? http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/complicate

to make something more difficult to deal with or do

The OP asked velkyn why she uses the term "strong" with regard to atheism. No one suggested and no one is supporting using qualifiers like weak or strong, gnostic or agnostic every time the topic of atheism comes up. That's simply not happening here, and your continued rally against such a thing is interesting to me. Sometimes complex topics require more complex words, and qualifiers to those complex words. There's nothing wrong with using vocabulary to suit the conversation, even if that vocabulary becomes complex or detailed. This thread appears to be the exact scenario in which jetson and you agree that using qualifiers like strong would be valid. Why it has become your mission to censor the word strong from conversations with theists is confusing to me, especially as you've recently stated you would support just such a thing at a time such as this.

Quote
Why do you ignore the term anti-theism?

Please read my reply again. I didn't ignore it. I answered with a full paragraph. It was in reply to your #4.

Quote
You're not saying Yahweh/El/Allah/Zeus/Thor does not exist but ''any'' possible concept of a god within a universe where only 2% of it is known if that much. 

You'll have to complete this sentence before I know what you're saying or asking.

Quote
Why would I disagree with the color of your dress?  I bet you look hot in it though. ;)

The point was in showing the qualifier doesn't change the essence of the thing it qualifies. Strong does not change atheism any more than blue changes dress. This particular example refers to some dress that went viral online last year, some saw it as blue with black trim, some saw it as white with gold. It became the topic of so many conversations, the mainstream media even picked up on it and tried to explain the phenomena [dress].

Quote
You failed to mention in my response to Jetson that I think it's only useful in conversation with other atheist.  Why? I did not say I agree with you I said; ''thank you for agreeing with me''.  You're silly.  Please go back and read the response again it might help you understand it better.


So the term strong is okay to use in your opinion only insofar as atheists only use it? Is that your position?

Quote
Would you like me to start my own thread?  None has left.  I'm going to.  Look for How Atheist Shift the Burden of Proof.  I'll post it in Chatter.  I'm mostly doing it out of respect for velkyn.  She shouldn't have been singled out.  I honestly wish I had done this much sooner.

I think that would be good for you. I get the impression you're not sure just how to apply that concept to a logical argument. You throw this term and "moving the goal posts" around quite a bit, but I notice that only happens when a direct answer to a particular question is avoided. I suspect it's because that question is confusing to you, and so you assume the other person is throwing you off intentionally. I could be wrong, but that's the impression I'm getting from this and other conversations with you.
98
Chatter / "Seven Futuristic Cities That Could Define the World of Tomorrow"
« Last post by shnozzola on December 04, 2016, 11:52:50 AM »
Quote
The futuristic cities of science fiction hold a strong appeal in our collective imagination. The thought that we might one day revolutionize everything about how we live – including where we live – is an exciting one. What’s even more exciting is the idea that some of the most outlandish cities from science fiction might be within our technical reach tomorrow.

Now, if we could just get past the idea that nationality, or skin color, or culture, etc, is any more than simply the variety and fun of life.  We were in New York City this week, and it rained every day.  It seemed many people on the crowded restaurants on the rainy streets didn't realize the vast underground shops and restaurants at Rockefeller Center, while thinking below the shops is the subway system, and below the subway system is the sewer and aqueduct system, and someday above the streets will be bridges and building connections at higher levels, like so many movies we've seen over the years.  Blade Runner comes to mind.






















http://www.thecoolist.com/seven-futuristic-cities-incredible-live/

99
Science / Re: "The Case AGAINST Dark Matter"
« Last post by Mr. Blackwell on December 04, 2016, 11:24:39 AM »
Hmmm...perhaps humans are like the hapax legomenon of the universe.
100
Chatter / Re: How Atheists Shift the Burden of Proof
« Last post by jaimehlers on December 04, 2016, 09:39:11 AM »
Failing to find evidence for something, where one reasonably expects to find evidence for it, is itself a form of evidence.  For example, when they were testing the Higgs field, they had to perform tests to attempt to produce a Higgs boson, and every time they failed to do so, they were able to exclude certain mass ranges from future consideration.  To put it another way, failing to find the Higgs boson at certain mass ranges was evidence that it did not fall within those mass ranges.  If they had failed to find it within all expected mass ranges, that would have been pretty solid evidence against its existence (and by extension, the Higgs field).

I suspect the reasoning that strong atheists use regarding gods is something like, "we've looked for gods and failed to find them, which itself is evidence against them existing, therefore I don't believe they exist".  I am not a strong atheist, so I don't know for sure, but that stands to reason.  So it's not so much a positive claim as it is a stronger negative conclusion.
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]