• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Atheists take aim at Christmas

It's all perspective and opinion. What you deem to be an attack is not viewed as an attack by everyone. :2wave:
But could be in the eyes of the law if violence erupts, which is the overall point.
 
Flawless debate tactic.
I'm not trying to debate, I already gave the information for reading to another poster on the matter.



False. I suggest you do more research. Let me help:

As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena. Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. A clear distinction needs to be made between facts (things which can be observed and/or measured) and theories (explanations which correlate and interpret the facts).
Nice try, Wikipedia:Theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The word theory has many distinct meanings in different fields of knowledge, depending on their methodologies and the context of discussion. Broadly speaking we can say that a theory is some kind of belief or claim that (supposedly) explains, asserts, or consolidates some class of claims. Additionally, in contrast with a theorem the statement of the theory is generally accepted only in some tentative fashion as opposed to regarding it as having been conclusively established. This may merely indicate, as it does in the sciences, that the theory was arrived at using potentially faulty inferences (scientific induction) as opposed to the necessary inferences used in mathematical proofs. In these cases the term theory does not suggest a low confidence in the claim and many uses of the term in the sciences require just the opposite. However, In common usage, the word theory is often used to signify a conjecture, an opinion, a speculation, or a hypothesis. In this usage, a theory is just a claim with the additional suggestion that the claim isn't sufficiently justified to be more than a theory.
In other words, and educated guess.







Still wrong. See above.
Really,
In science the word theory is not a synonym of "fact".
See right here.



Another epic debate tactic.
Just testing the level of commitment here, not debating.
 
The only people getting angry and violent are the religious...
One has a right to be angry at an outrage, seems the other side is trying to defend the outrageous.
 
I'm not trying to debate, I already gave the information for reading to another poster on the matter.

And yet when I asked you TWICE in which posts I could find said information you refused to. Only telling me that you posted something which would support your claim, is a bit like telling me that you already cited court cases to me, which you didn't. Or its like citing a book or a letter saying that somewhere in there is the answer to my alleged misunderstanding, and yet you refuse to quote it for me, or even tell me where to look.

Nice try, Wikipedia:Theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In other words, and educated guess.

Really, See right here.

Oh wow how sad that I have to quote your own source for you, you should have read the rest silly boy. What you quoted was the "broader use" of the term, you should have scrolled down to the scientific meaning, which is why I specifically said "in the scientific sense."

Science

[edit] Casual Usage

In science the word theory is not a synonym of "fact"
. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet but we invoke theories of gravity to explain this occurrence. However, even inside the sciences the word theory picks out several different concepts dependent on the context. In casual speech scientists don't use the term theory in a particularly precise fashion, allowing historical accidents to determine whether a given body of scientific work is called a theory, law, principle or something else. For instance Einstein's relativity is usually called "the theory of relativity" while Newton's theory of gravity often is called "the law of gravity." In this kind of casual use by scientists the word theory can be used flexibly to refer to whatever kind of explanation or prediction is being examined. It is for this instance that a scientific theory is a claim based on a body of evidence.

[edit] Philosophical Conception

This is in considerable contrast to the more philosophical context where a scientific theory is understood to be a testable model capable of predicting future occurrences or observations and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation. As with most things in philosophy there is considerable debate as to whether this is really the correct concept to use in describing scientific research. For instance many definitions also add the constrain that a theory describes the natural world, though it is often unclear whether this is a definition of natural world or a constraint on what can be a theory. Note that this concept specifically does not require that a theory be particularly well supported or have any justification whatsoever. A major concern in this philosophical context is the problem of demarcation, i.e., distinguishing those ideas that are properly studied by the sciences and those that are not. Intuitively one might suppose that it doesn't matter where a suggestion came from, when it was made, or if it was ever well supported by the evidence to whether it's the sort of thing that scientists ought to consider (e.g. test or dismiss as already tested). Unsurprisingly, therefore, this concept of a scientific theory tends to apply equally to justified and unjustified predictions [3]. In other words the term theory is used so that it encompasses what might be commonly called a hypothesis.

[edit] Pedagogical Definition

Finally, in pedagogical contexts or in official pronouncements by official organizations of scientists one gets a definition like the following.

According to the United States National Academy of Sciences,

Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena, [4]

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.

Now you can learn the difference, how embarrassing that your own source proves you wrong tho.

A theory is an educated guess, I guess you didn't do all that well in science did you.

Actually I got straight A's in my science classes, and wrote an essay on foolish laypersons who do not understand that a theory does not mean a guess in the scientific sense, like you :2wave:

Just testing the level of commitment here, not debating.

This is a debate forum.
 
Last edited:
I will never understand why certain atheists (most are very reasonable) deem it necessary to be insulting? Don't get me wrong in that I know it works both ways, but it is really just silly at this point. Why can't people just think for themselves and not be called "stupid" because they disagree on religion?
 
Now you can learn the difference, how embarrassing that your own source proves you wrong tho.

He is correct to a point.

Some scientific theory's are not forgone conclusions or facts in and of themselves. They are, or can be supported by good evidence and solid facts within the theory itself and still be found to be wrong later on. It can be wrong in part (most common) or completely off base (almost never.)

Any scientist worth his metal would not say any theory is a proven fact. He would say the evidence points here.
 
I will never understand why certain atheists (most are very reasonable) deem it necessary to be insulting? Don't get me wrong in that I know it works both ways, but it is really just silly at this point. Why can't people just think for themselves and not be called "stupid" because they disagree on religion?

Who called anyone stupid because the disagree?
 
He is correct to a point.

Some scientific theory's are not forgone conclusions or facts in and of themselves. They are, or can be supported by good evidence and solid facts within the theory itself and still be found to be wrong later on. It can be wrong in part (most common) or completely off base (almost never.)

This is true, evolution gets revised all the time when better evidence is discovered. Because the theory has predictive value, its easy to imagine something that would prove it wrong (a rabbit in the precambrian for example)

Any scientist worth his metal would not say any theory is a proven fact. He would say the evidence points here.

This is true, in fact as a general rule scientists don't use the word "fact" at all. They say evidence, hypothesis, law, theory or principle, and most importantly "unproven and unfalsifiable hypothesis with no predictive value."

It really says it all doesn't it?
 
Last edited:
Who called anyone stupid because the disagree?

Nobody here as far as I know. It was a general statement from a lifetime of debating.
 
Nobody here as far as I know. It was a general statement from a lifetime of debating.

Oh I see, well there are two atheists on this board who are "strong atheists" and insult people, but for the most part everyone else is quite reasonable...

In my experience its the believer who takes offense where there is none, and cannot understand the difference between "you're wrong here's why" and "you're stupid because you're wrong."

Or more commonly is when one reads "your idea is illogical, your fallacy is X" but their brain hears "you are incapable of logic, a moron, and I think I'm smarter than you."

I think its because most people are under the impression that its alright to criticize ones opinions about politics, history, current events, etc... but never their supernatural beliefs. Those beliefs are "sacred" to them and often the underlying premise in their whole worldview.

You wouldn't believe how many times people confuse my skepticism with cynicism, or my certainty and tone with arrogance.
 
Last edited:
This is true, evolution gets revised all the time when better evidence is discovered. Because the theory has predictive value, its easy to imagine something that would prove it wrong (a rabbit in the precambrian for example)

Yep. In fact they just found some new fossil that has thrown the theory into an uproar again about the Cambrian explosion/radiation.

Lets not get off topic with evolutionary debate. ;)

This is true, in fact as a general rule scientists don't use the word "fact" at all. They say evidence, hypothesis, law, theory or principle, and most importantly "unproven and unfalsifiable hypothesis with no predictive value."

It really says it all doesn't it?

It does, but it still makes many cases just an educated guess.
 
The only people getting angry and violent are the religious...

Though not violent, read the thread and you'll see the non-religious getting angry and nasty. Which leads me to this:

Moderator's Warning:
Please cease the nastiness and attacks. I see several coming from Lachean, and a few others, and they need to end, now.
 
It does, but it still makes many cases just an educated guess.

I guarantee you nowhere in the literature will any official scientific document from any study or research use the word "theory" in reference to a mere educated guess; The NAS wouldn't have it, and I cant imagine any journal publishing it. Any such "educated guess" would be regarded as a "new controversial hypothesis"

I was with you when you said it didn't mean fact, and that theories are not foregone conclusions, they change and revise and get better; That is the beauty of science.

But I'm going to have to ask you for a source for that above claim, where the author used the word "theory" to mean educated guess.

EDIT: By that I mean, no where in recent decades. Things were alot different in the days of Newton.
 
Last edited:
Oh I see, well there are two atheists on this board who are "strong atheists" and insult people, but for the most part everyone else is quite reasonable...

In my experience its the believer who takes offense where there is none, and cannot understand the difference between "you're wrong here's why" and "you're stupid because you're wrong."

Or more commonly is when one reads "your idea is illogical, your fallacy is X" but their brain hears "you are incapable of logic, a moron, and I think I'm smarter than you."

I think its because most people are under the impression that its alright to criticize ones opinions about politics, history, current events, etc... but never their supernatural beliefs. Those beliefs are "sacred" to them and often the underlying premise in their whole worldview.

You wouldn't believe how many times people confuse my skepticism with cynicism, or my certainty and tone with arrogance.

I see it from people on both sides. Depends on the person. Most of those that exhibit "insulting" behavior are those who seem to feel the need to degrade along with their debate. U necessary to make one's point.
 
The fake moral outrage that certain Christans do each year over their Holy Holiday and the Fake War on Christmas disgust me. :roll: It is so very ironic since Christians stole the Christmas idea from Pagans. Anybody that knows the least little thing about religion knows this and also knows there is no way in hell that Jesus was born in Dec. Give me a break and spare me the fake outrage over some non X-tians trying to ruin your special day that you stole from so called Heathens.. *Snickers* :roll::roll::roll:
 
Oh I see, well there are two atheists on this board who are "strong atheists" and insult people, but for the most part everyone else is quite reasonable...

In my experience its the believer who takes offense where there is none, and cannot understand the difference between "you're wrong here's why" and "you're stupid because you're wrong."

Or more commonly is when one reads "your idea is illogical, your fallacy is X" but their brain hears "you are incapable of logic, a moron, and I think I'm smarter than you."

I think its because most people are under the impression that its alright to criticize ones opinions about politics, history, current events, etc... but never their supernatural beliefs. Those beliefs are "sacred" to them and often the underlying premise in their whole worldview.

You wouldn't believe how many times people confuse my skepticism with cynicism, or my certainty and tone with arrogance.

I absolutely agree with you here. My initial comment was much the same statement.

Most religious people consider the faith they have as part of who they are. This is why they get insulted much quicker by perceived insults.

Saying something like "your magic man in the sky" or "Jesus is a myth like Santa" is insulting to a Christian and rightfully so. Comments like that are not constructive and result in hostility.
 
I absolutely agree with you here. My initial comment was much the same statement.

Most religious people consider the faith they have as part of who they are. This is why they get insulted much quicker by perceived insults.

Saying something like "your magic man in the sky" or "Jesus is a myth like Santa" is insulting to a Christian and rightfully so. Comments like that are not constructive and result in hostility.

You notice that some atheists (not all) will make comments like the ones you referenced and act completely surprised when an Christian takes offense yet they will be gnashing their teeth and tearing their shirts when a Christian comments on their lack of faith and how uninspired the atheist's moral code must be. Ironic, isn't it?
 
Here's the problem as I see it...and it, as usual, starts with the extremists. You have some religious extremists who proselytize and attempt to push their beliefs on everyone, claiming that what they think is "correct". This, of course, brings the extreme atheists out of the woodwork, insulting anyone who believes in GOD. Now, what this accomplishes is a few things. Firstly, both groups of extremists attack everyone on the other side of their ideology, even those, of whom are the vast majority, who couldn't give a hoot about what anyone else believes and have no desire to place their beliefs on anyone else. Secondly, these non-extremists grow tired of being needlessly attacked, by the opposing extremists, sometimes forcing them to become more aggressive in order to defend themselves against unprovoked attacks. Lastly, this causes more of a divide, all cause by extremists who, with seeming little ego strength, feel the need to push their positions on others, or feel the need to degrade others positions, when, for the most part, those that they oppose could care less about imposing their beliefs on anyone else.

So, I now propose a question for atheists who seem to like to attack those of faith. I believe in GOD. I have no intention of placing my beliefs on you or anyone else. I do not want religion mixed with government in any way and will fight as strongly as you will against that happening. I am content to live my life with my beliefs and have no issue with you living yours with yours. Why do you feel the need to attack and degrade my belief system to me when I will not, in any way, attempt to place my beliefs on you?
 
I absolutely agree with you here. My initial comment was much the same statement.

Most religious people consider the faith they have as part of who they are. This is why they get insulted much quicker by perceived insults.

Saying something like "your magic man in the sky" or "Jesus is a myth like Santa" is insulting to a Christian and rightfully so. Comments like that are not constructive and result in hostility.

I've said "great surveillance camera in the sky" but that was to make the point that fear of god is a contemptible reason to be good.

People have also confused one of my arguments with "Jesus is a myth like Santa." This often comes up when someone makes an argument ad ignorantum. They support their claim with the fact that one cannot disprove their god, and when I bring up some of the infinite number of things that cannot be proven (flying spaghetti monster, celestial teapots, unicorns) and explain that "just because these things can't be disproven doesn't make you believe in them any does it?"

But they read that and hear "You're as childish as people who believe in unicorns" rather than my point that not being able to disprove a claim is not an argument for its truth.
 
You notice that some atheists (not all) will make comments like the ones you referenced and act completely surprised when an Christian takes offense yet they will be gnashing their teeth and tearing their shirts when a Christian comments on their lack of faith and how uninspired the atheist's moral code must be. Ironic, isn't it?

Actually, I see some atheists reveling in the fact that a Christian takes offense at insulting comments.
 
EDIT: By that I mean, no where in recent decades. Things were alot different in the days of Newton.

This is a really good example from encyclopedia.com:

"Geologists believe the explosion of new species that occurred during the Cambrian period can be explained by sudden, large swings in the Earth's axis of rotation caused by the shifting of continental masses. The shifting axis may have prompted weather and other changes, which placed stress on existing species." - New theory tilts Earth on its axis. (theory explains 'Cambrian explosion') - Insight on the News | Encyclopedia.com

The evidence for this "theory" is weak at best, and yet it is still a scientific theory. This is what I mean by an educated guess. It does not make the science wrong or anything, but it is no less a guess on the part of scientists.

This debate is about "theory" and it's scientific usage, and not "evolution" so forgive the use of an example that is closely related.
 
I absolutely agree with you here. My initial comment was much the same statement.

Most religious people consider the faith they have as part of who they are. This is why they get insulted much quicker by perceived insults.

Saying something like "your magic man in the sky" or "Jesus is a myth like Santa" is insulting to a Christian and rightfully so. Comments like that are not constructive and result in hostility.

I do not understand why some Christians consider things like "your magic man in the sky" or "Jesus is a myth like Santa" an insult.. It is true to them? I dunno. :confused:

If you are deep in your faith why would that even bother you? I am just trying to understand here. I mean I could understand if someone said I love the thought of Jesus being nailed to a Crux and things like that..

But saying that your god is just a myth is a valid argument and should not be considered an insult.. Because to some folks? That is what "your" Jesus" IS to Them.. That is their truth.. See what I mean? Jesus is a myth to a lot of people.. You really should not take that as an insult because that is their own reality.
 
You notice that some atheists (not all) will make comments like the ones you referenced and act completely surprised when an Christian takes offense yet they will be gnashing their teeth and tearing their shirts when a Christian comments on their lack of faith and how uninspired the atheist's moral code must be. Ironic, isn't it?

Yes. People like Richard Dawkins (a decent fellow) can't understand when he makes references like that why people get upset.
 
Back
Top Bottom