3,004 Forum Posts by "Peter-II"
At 2/20/07 12:46 PM, qygibo wrote: Can anyone explain this supposed logic to me?
Ah, Dre-Man...
Y'see, Dre-Man is a blindly self-assured 14-year-old. How anyone that arrogant and insulting can claim to be a Christian is beyond me. He's just like so many others I've met within that age range, except...worse. Far worse. He's read the Bible, he's reasonably intelligent, he's well articulated, and from this he's somehow bloody well concluded that he knows everything. Everything. He somehow manages to single-handedly disgrace entire religions and the philosophies within those religions, deface the works of Steven Hawking, and claim to know more about subjects that members have spent years studying or even experiencing for themselves having read maybe one or two articles concerning those subjects in single paragraphs. Sure, I've met arrogant people who think they know everything about everything having experienced roughly nothing out of life for themself, but nothing has quite surpassed Dre-Man and his never-ending trail of ignorance and stupidity. It's like, ignorance itself isn't so bad...as long as the ignorant person in question admits they don't know all that much and are willing to learn...but ignorant people that claim to know everything, that's a different story.
Just ignore him. He's barely worth it.
At 2/20/07 03:45 AM, Ravariel wrote: How wrong does one have to be to have theists AND atheists united against them?
omg, but dre-man isn't wrong! everybody else is just crazy!!! atheism is fulfilling biblical prophecies with bullshit theories like evolution!!
Meanwhile, in the real world...
At 2/19/07 10:34 PM, Imperator wrote: Why don't we let the boards decide who's more intelligent, hmm?
Dre-Man:
Imperator:
Cast your votes now NG!
Ah, now this is just cruel.
....
(Imperator)
At 2/15/07 04:17 PM, Togukawa wrote:
Thanks, saves me the trouble of responding myself...
Also Dre-Man, about the hypothesis thing, basically we can't know what was before the big bang, with our current equipment / knowledge of the universe thing. This is why science is always advancing. Curiosity is what enables us to find these things out, and I'm afraid "non physical, incomprehencible deity creates it in six days" just isn't satisfying enough for me...I'd like to know the physical reality, myself. Maybe God created the big bang. Maybe he didn't. I'm not jumping to any conclusions.
At 2/15/07 03:10 PM, Dre-Man wrote: No physical processes have been shown that explain how evolution or the big bang occured.
lul, wut? The physical process that explain how evolution occurs is genetic mutation. DNA mutates, if the mutation benefits the organism, that organism will reproduce more and as a result its offspring will inherit this beneficial mutation.
As for the big bang, there are a number of hypotheses. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang#Specula tive_physics_beyond_the_Big_Bang
All in all, you can't really make this allegation since no physical processes have been shown that explain how the universe just transcended from almighty Yahweh's very fingers in six days.
Two dictionary definitions of the word theory, one of which is derived from Mr. Webster himself.
1.) contemplation or speculation.
2.) guess or conjecture.
Three cheers for he who doesn't know the difference between a dictionary definition and an analysis!
At 2/13/07 01:09 PM, sex-crazed-maniac wrote: It's quite funny how all the evolutionary discoveries were done by religious people.
Darwin
At 2/13/07 01:31 AM, Imperator wrote: I'm Roman Catholic, I believe in God AND science, and will answer ANY questions relating to my faith and my religion to the best of my abilities.
It'd be helpful if you could answer the following, as they've been confusing me for a while:
1. I've always wondered about the pope thing. It's like, if the Bible is god's word and god sees everyone equally, then why do Roman Catholics have to guided by this "middle man"?
2. Why don't Catholics ever pray to God / Jesus directly (correct me if I'm wrong)?
3. Why do you have to ask priests for forgiveness from god? Doesn't god see everyone equally?
At 2/12/07 07:51 PM, Imperator wrote: Im going to interject here cause this isn't entirely true, in fact, it's rather false.....
Science is very much a subjective art, it's people who decide what to study, how to study it, and for what purposes.
Science by its very definition is any knowledge that is entirely objective. So, I disagree with your postulation that science is a subjective art. Scientists are trained to be a lot more objective than most. As such they just want to find things out. My point is that science itself shouldn't take either the side of theism or atheism automatically, and that any claims that it does are false.
We've seen where that can go awry with human experimentation, Nazi "scientists" working on Jews, etc.
I don't see your point...sure, I find the whole idea of human experimentation without consent morally wrong, but I still don't think that this backs up your opinion...
Science used to create super-soldiers is VERY much one sided, especially if you get to play "human guinnea pig"......
I'd say that's more engineering than science. Science, again, is just the scientific method, objective knowledge, etc.
In the context of religion the only thing you will hear stout defiance against is the idea that science supercedes religion, thereby making religion worthless. You've heard it before, and it's expressed on these boards quite frequently.
Yes, this is exactly my point. I don't think that science should be automatically considered inherently theistic or atheistic. Scientists try to find out the truth about the natural world, and any implications this has on religious ideologies should be "by products" as it were.
Other than that, theists don't really have much to say about science, unless they happen to be scientists themselves.....
No different from any other person though.....
I agree.
COMPLETELY disagree. Science and religion can intertwine with each other in ways you wouldn't believe (clearly you don't). In most cases, religion USES science to EXPLAIN the impact of God, thereby nulling arguments that science somehow "disproves" religion. The two were never supposed to be separate entities, I dunno why people want to think of it that way, most Christians, Buddhists, Hundus, Jews, etc don't see science and religion in competition.
I think you might be misunderstanding me here. I'm not saying religion and science should be in conflict at all, nor that theists shouldn't consider science, in fact I'm saying the opposite. I think that science and religion shouldn't be compared as mutually exclusive entities, and that science shouldn't be thought to be on the side of either atheism or theism.
I mean hell! If 95% of this country is Christian, does that automatically mean the other 5% make up all the scientists? Not a fat chance in hell. You'd be amazed how many theists ARE scientists.....
I never said that theists can't be scientists. About two-thirds of scientists are theists...again, I think our disagreement stems from some sort of miscommunication here...
At 2/12/07 07:04 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote: Maybe, but it is about as arrogent as people saying that atheism is right because science is on my side. I say that science is on relligions side
IMO, science is science is science, and is on no side in particular. It's up to us to decide the implications of theories that religions claim to be invalid because it disagrees with its religious dogma.
All I can say is that science and religion are in different categories entirely, and I don't think that they should be compared in the way that you're doing. What science does do is contradict things like the creation hymn of Genesis 1 if we're taking the Old Testament completely literally; but then, who says that holy texts are meant to be taken word for word anyway?
We might as well agree to disagree here, since I don't think that science is on either side.
amost atheists are just sheep that believe in what other people say and do not make there own arguments.
Yes, I will give you that. However, most people in general are just sheep that believe in what other people say and do not make their own arguments. I would, however, say that there is a weak correlation between coming up with individual arguments and atheism, simply because atheism implies free thought (in most people's eyes) and isn't attached to any particular dogma.
I call ignorence in this context not looking for meaning beyond your world and looking at things with wisdom (if not intelligence), despite being wrong or not.
Well, in general the atheist philosophy is, why look for meaning beyond your world when nothing more is needed to impress oneself? Life is fucking amazing, nature is fucking amazing and the universe is fucking amazing. Unlike yourself I don't feel the need to attribute this wonder to a big creator guy, because I'm satisfied with life as it is.
Im not saying all atheists are ignorent, im just saying the ones that act with no wisdom wich you are not i think.
Okay, I will admit that atheists annoy me when they start saying things like evolution and the big bang disprove the existence of a deity, which they obviously don't. It especially ticks me off when they don't know very much about said theories...=P
Im not ignorent in english because i never claimed that i cant be wrong.
I'm aware of this. I'm just demonstrating how irrelevant and fallicious ad-hominem attacks are and can be.
Monotheist relligion, a relligion like christianity or Zorostrianism that believes in only one god.
Polytheistic relligion, a relligion like mainsreem Hinduism that believes in more than one god.
Atheistic relligion, a relligion like a sect of buhdism that doesnt believe in god.
You claim to be a atheist but you dont believe in relligion so you have no insight beyond your own little world, nor do you care, your a faithless zeolot.
Okay, atheism doesn't need to be related to a religion in order to be truly atheism...atheism is simply a disbelief in a deity. It doesn't need dogma, or rules or anything.
I know that stalin was a communist and not a Nazi, I was just turning the table one the oldest atheist argument there is, It is the individuels in power that make the horrible things happen and blaiming an entire group of people for these things, that is what hittler did, and he went ahead and did it too, argo the stupid 13 year old atheists are making the same hittler argument at the theists, im sorry you diddnt get the joke.
Alright, alright, fair enough...I just found your paragraph a little over the top. I suppose you can't really get the jokey tone across a message board that easily. And I agree wholeheartedly, corruption occurs with people in power regardless of their religion or lack thereof.
The point is I dont hate anyone, i just dont like ignorent people, nomatter what they believe in.
Yes, ignorant people are indeed deeply annoying.
At 2/12/07 04:47 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote: Many people on this thread are stupid and dont know what they are talking about, relligious people are making sence (except dre-man)
This is interesting. You're basically saying that people who agree with you are making sense and that people who disagree with you aren't making sense. This is entirely arrogant. Many people, such as yourself, are unwilling to accept that somebody who disagrees with them can make a sensical argument. This kind of behaviour just pisses me off...as an atheist, I am willing to accept and consider the opinions of a theist on say, morality, as well as the differing opinions of other forms of nontheists.
Take this guy for instance. I disagree with almost everything he says. However, I still find his writing enjoyable and I also find it worth to consider a lot of what he says and use it to analyse and refine my stance of atheism.
the atheists are claiming atheism is the best scientific anser because of 'facts', but dont know what the facts are or what does it prove (ie- ignorence).
Clearly your definition of ignorance differs entirely from mine. Deriving incorrect conclusions from circumstancial, anecdotal or thought-related evidence isn't ignorance. I'd sooner call it a poor analytical ability.
Now first of all, you're doing the usual "oh well they're wrong, because I say so" argument. Well, how much water does that hold? You're putting theists in a bad light here, and it's pissing me off.
And while we're basing our arguments off circumstancial ad-hominem attacks here, how about I claim that you can't call anyone "ignorant" because you can't spell the word, indicating that you're ignorant yourself of the English language. See how fallicious these kind of attacks are?
Charles Darwin wanted to be a minister and said that it would be imposibe for life to just happen by chance.
Completely irrelevant.
Also many people are ignorent in knowing about relligion itself, as demonstrated by people asking how a Hindu be an atheists, a Atheist some one who believes in a relligion with no god, a montheist is some one that believes in one god, and a polytheist believes in many gods. So saying you dont believe in god or relligion is cotradictory, you just said I believe in a relligion with no god and yet i dont have a relligion... so how can i be a atheist? your not, you just dont have a theory and dont want to know, so by deffinition your Ignorent by every sence of the word.
Could you rephrase this paragraph? Because as far as I can tell, it makes no sense.
So... you dont have a thoery and dont want to know, you are insulting others faith, you claim you are right and we are wrong, and you blaim us for many of the worlds problems, you had a leader that killed many people in a genocide of jews and ortodox christians (that would be Stalin)
Yes, you're right that atheist mass-murderers have existed. However, atheists are, overall, far less responsible for mass homicides than theists are. Maybe this is because atheists aren't likely to rise to power in the first place, or maybe it's because atheists are less common than theists in general, especially in history before the 18th century. I don't know. However, it stills stands that your argument is fallicious.
My God! the ignorent Atheists have become the next Nazis!
Now you're combining your ad-hominem attacks with your ignorance of the fact that Stalin was a COMMUNIST, not a NAZI.
At 2/12/07 01:14 PM, Gunter45 wrote: However, in this perspective. Time is a result rather than a building block. Time is simply another natural force that is perpetuated by physics.
Which leads to the next question: is time simply an invention made by humans to give a name to the various motions and events that we see, or is time something completely seperate which works as an arena which allows these events to occur?
Man, I'm going to have to think about this some more.
At 2/11/07 06:10 PM, Imperator wrote: I'll start the poll:
Roman Catholic. Don't give a damn either way.
Weak atheist, don't care.
I've decided that arguing against Grammer about the "9/11 conspiracy" is equivalent to arguing against Ravariel about physics.
At 2/10/07 11:45 PM, phantom-drummer wrote: Seriously, your post could change the minds of a LOT of religious buffs.
I doubt it.
:/
At 2/5/07 09:48 PM, Dre-Man wrote: Aw, you got a few love taps on the arm? How pathetic.
Seriously, why the hell was that needed?
omg it's a 14-year-old arguing with a 15-year-old
What a glorious 3000th post.
Cancer: dichloroacetate, capsaicin
As for the common cold, there are a number of hypotheses as well as treatments that work only in some cases, including interferons, antivirals and good old vitamin C.
Arguably fundamental particles are all pretty much the same thing, but are characterised by different spins. Fermions, for instance, have a half-integer spin and bosons have an integer spin. It depends whether or not you consider particles to be different if their spins differ. However, fundamental particles, to the best of my understanding, don't form time - so I dunno.
Hey, can I bring up the never-ending, expert opinions of shohaib?
Age: 19
Damn....
I should post in this forum more...
At 2/9/07 05:30 PM, shohaib wrote: 42% believe in a conspiracy. thats too big of a percentage to ignore
Appeal to majority is a logical fallacy.
It would appear that all other "science vs religion" themed topics or topics that turned into that theme have been deleted, leaving only this one. Hooray!
At 2/3/07 05:45 PM, Imperator wrote: "lol, you aren't very good at this "logical argument" thing are you."
I have been referenced!
Still, my age is set as unspecified, so I don't fall under the category of 15-year-olds.
At 2/3/07 01:48 PM, Dre-Man wrote:At 2/3/07 07:50 AM, Peter-II wrote: Fun activity: go to Dre-Man's MySpace, look at the picture on it, and imagine that kid saying of Dre-Man's posts.Because obviously someone's looks and physique alter the credibility and correctness of their arguments... right.
Endless humour.
Out of all the posts you could have responded to....=D
Fun activity: go to Dre-Man's MySpace, look at the picture on it, and imagine that kid saying of Dre-Man's posts.
Endless humour.
Dre-Man, you're a fucking moron.
At 1/31/07 06:30 PM, Reverend-Kyle wrote: Yup, because learning from the past is wrong.
*Swoosh*
That's the sound of the point flying right over your head. Good job, jackass.
At 1/28/07 03:16 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote: hence many common people today find it absured that god can be real, but that is chainging i see that there was a pole that said there is more people in colledge that believes in relligion and more people that drop out dont.
Comparing belief in god to the earth revolving around the sun is just plain stupid - just because "many" people as you so aptly put it find the idea of god's existence to be absurd and a few hundred years ago people found heliocentrism absurd doesn't put belief in god on the same level as belief in heliocentrism. That's a complete logical fallacy.
Even if you did see such a poll - which you probably didn't - then it was probably just because most people, in general, are theistic. You are implying that intelligent people that go to college are, as a general trend, are theistic, and people who drop out are, in general, atheistic / humanistic / agnostic.
Let me be blunt.
That is retarded.
Even if that were true, it wouldn't mean that there is any scientific data to validate the existence of god. That notion, too, is retarded. As has been said on this forum countless times before, there is no way science can prove or disprove the existence of an omnipotent creator. None.
At 1/25/07 11:13 AM, Grammer wrote: No, that's actually true. Do you like,, know what you're saying, before you say it? Or you just have some sort of like, knee-jerk response to someone who disagree with you?
He graduated with a GPA of 2.35, heh.
At 1/23/07 04:44 PM, intrinsik2 wrote:At 1/23/07 04:16 PM, Peter-II wrote: How is science even a belief?Science in itself is not a belief. I never said it was.
Okay, allow me to rephrase. You said that a belief in the validity of science is equivalent to believing in the validity of "anything else", for instance, a religion, that the world is going to end in a few seconds, or that the earth is flat. I think that that notion is simply false.
And… that you think science takes precedence over religion… that’s a belief, no matter how many scientific facts you try to justify it with, it is the outcome of judging that the truth lies ultimately within science.
Please explain what you mean by "precedence" in this context. Yes, I know what the word means, but it isn't absolutely clear to me what you're trying to say here.
A belief is the appropriation and application of what we deem to be the ‘truth.’
Actually, a belief is "confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof". Unfortunately, thinking that scientific observations in controlled environments can be used to draw valid conclusions about the natural world and how it works cannot be compared to believing in "anything else" as you put it.
Better is subjective. If you meant more accurate, then I’d agree.
conclusions than religion is not equivalent to thinking that religion draws better conclusions than science.If you’re using the word better, it is.
Now you're just meaninglessly picking on semantics. Of course I meant more accurate, how on earth could you have thought otherwise?
They draw different kinds of conclusions, but the point remains.But the belief in either kind of conclusion draws from similar (if not the same) psychological motivations.
Psychological motivations have nothing to do with it. I can believe that the earth is flat simply for the sake of believing it, or I can believe (though I would prefer the term know) that the earth is more of an ellipsoid because of countless proofs and evidences for it being so. They are not equivalent, and they cannot be compared; there is more reason for believing that the earth is an ellipsoid / oblate spheroid than there is for believing the earth is flat.
