The New Definition of Atheism

[watsup]

He's got nothing on you when it comes to snide insults.

Thank you, David.

 

[watsup]

Non-sense. What evidence do you have for histories recorded in history books?

Atheism is the fallacious belief that humans depend on evidence to get to a truth, but humans actually rely on testimonies to get to a truth. No one even bothers to go through all experiments to get the scientific truths. Science in a nutshell is the testimonies of an extremely small amount of scientists professed in a particular scientific field.

Do you math! How many humans actually tested relativity in order believe that it is so? 99.99% don't bother doing any lab to get to any truth, even when science is a phenomenon repeatedly available, unlike histories which mostly are one time events happened in the long past.
What evidence do you have for the foods you ate in your own past birthday parties? Do you friends need evidence to believe what you tell? Humans in majority don't have the ability to get to a truth directly. That's why 99.99% of them, under all circumstance, will have to rely on testimonies to get to a truth!


Get a clue!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I disagree with your first paragraph and find it actually WRONG. Science is based on objective and reasoned evidence for any particular theory. It makes no matter how many scientists proclaim "belief" in a theory, unless they can show evidence, then it is throw by the wayside.
Truth comes not from "testimony", but from objective analysis of alternatives. That is the very foundation of science. Truth is not just "given". Not at all.
For instance, climate scientists on a worldwide basis have found huge amounts of evidence for MANMADE global warming, and yet some people insist on "not believing it". The data is there. The evidence is there. If they "don't believe it", then they don't understand science and are using personal opinion rather than hard science for their opinion. That's not science.

History is the same way. Yes, historians sometimes disagree on the meaning of a particular piece of history, but they must present EVIDENCE for their particular viewpoint. They can't just say "I think this is the way it happened" and get away with it. Lots of other historians will be checking their work.

 

[NWO_Spook]

I disagree with your first paragraph and find it actually WRONG. Science is based on objective and reasoned evidence for any particular theory. It makes no matter how many scientists proclaim "belief" in a theory, unless they can show evidence, then it is throw by the wayside.
Truth comes not from "testimony", but from objective analysis of alternatives. That is the very foundation of science. Truth is not just "given". Not at all.
For instance, climate scientists on a worldwide basis have found huge amounts of evidence for MANMADE global warming, and yet some people insist on "not believing it". The data is there. The evidence is there. If they "don't believe it", then they don't understand science and are using personal opinion rather than hard science for their opinion. That's not science.

History is the same way. Yes, historians sometimes disagree on the meaning of a particular piece of history, but they must present EVIDENCE for their particular viewpoint. They can't just say "I think this is the way it happened" and get away with it. Lots of other historians will be checking their work.

At least historical events can be backed up with physical evidence in many cases. We don't have such evidence for the existence of gods.

 

[zyzygy]

I have not met a priest that would say something so obviously incorrect and divisive. What church would openly promote such nonsense?

Exactly!

 

[it's just me]

That is ridiculous. Why do you need to act like this?

I dont "act" like anything, I just gave my opinion based on a lifetime of observation. Riddle me this: why do atheists show up one every religion page on the internet to start arguments?

 

[it's just me]

I have not met a priest that would say something so obviously incorrect and divisive. What church would openly promote such nonsense?

Well, I've met a bunch of atheists who are just about that rude, both on and off the internet. The guy who prompted this comment of yours is one of them. Sorry, you (the collective "you") dont get to act like assholes then act surprised when you reap what you sow. It's a never ending source of irritation to me that people expect things from me that they won't expect from themselves.

Finally, if you ever set foot in a Church you'd know what we promote.

And I'm retired so put a sock in it.

 

[NWO_Spook]

I dont "act" like anything, I just gave my opinion based on a lifetime of observation. Riddle me this: why do atheists show up one every religion page on the internet to start arguments?

Do they?

 

[NWO_Spook]

Well, I've met a bunch of atheists who are just about that rude, both on and off the internet.

Funny, I was thinking the same thing about some theists, some of them on this very site.

The guy who prompted this comment of yours is one of them. Sorry, you (the collective "you") dont get to act like assholes then act surprised when you reap what you sow. It's a never ending source of irritation to me that people expect things from me that they won't expect from themselves.

Funny, I was thinking the same thing about some theists. Is there any need for such irrational anger?

Finally, if you ever set foot in a Church you'd know what we promote.

I spent a large section of my life in the RCC. However, I asked what church would promote such nonsense based upon said experience. Did you miss that?

And I'm retired so put a sock in it.

I will speak my mind despite the 'orders' of an angry individual on the internet. Do not presume you have authority over me just because you believe ancient stories.

 

[it's just me]

I disagree with your first paragraph and find it actually WRONG. Science is based on objective and reasoned evidence for any particular theory. It makes no matter how many scientists proclaim "belief" in a theory, unless they can show evidence, then it is throw by the wayside.
Truth comes not from "testimony", but from objective analysis of alternatives. That is the very foundation of science. Truth is not just "given". Not at all.
For instance, climate scientists on a worldwide basis have found huge amounts of evidence for MANMADE global warming, and yet some people insist on "not believing it". The data is there. The evidence is there. If they "don't believe it", then they don't understand science and are using personal opinion rather than hard science for their opinion. That's not science.

History is the same way. Yes, historians sometimes disagree on the meaning of a particular piece of history, but they must present EVIDENCE for their particular viewpoint. They can't just say "I think this is the way it happened" and get away with it. Lots of other historians will be checking their work.

Science does not generate "truth", it sometimes generates facts. And science is not based on "evidence", it is a methodology, the evidence is generated from practicing the method. Furthermore, nothing is ever "settled", I've lost count of the things people once thought were "proven" that are no longer believed. In 100 years people will wonder how we could be so stupid as to think some of the things we think today.

 

[it's just me]

Funny, I was thinking the same thing about some theists, some of them on this very site.



Funny, I was thinking the same thing about some theists. Is there any need for such irrational anger?



I spent a large section of my life in the RCC. However, I asked what church would promote such nonsense based upon said experience. Did you miss that?



I will speak my mind despite the 'orders' of an angry individual on the internet. Do not presume you have authority over me just because you believe ancient stories.

And I will speak MY mind despite the admonishment of lay people who think they can tell me what to say.

And unless I am very much mistaken even the RCC teaches that we are all sinners who have fallen short of the glory of God. Even you.

I am not angry nor am I irrational. These are my observations, take them or leave them.

 

[NWO_Spook]

And I will speak MY mind despite the admonishment of lay people who think they can tell me what to say.

So, you presume you have the right to bully others?

And unless I am very much mistaken even the RCC teaches that we are all sinners who have fallen short of the glory of God. Even you.

Did I say anything about doctrine? No, my word you're quite irrational at the moment. Anyway, I have no interest in engaging those who wish to start fights, so, I'll leave you to wallow in your anger.

I am not angry nor am I irrational. These are my observations, take them or leave them.

Your behaviour clearly evinces otherwise, and I'll leave your so-called observations if you don't mind.

 

[it's just me]

Utter nonsense. But if it were true, it still makes atheists better than you because you hate everybody. Your disdain for those you consider beneath you is palpable in every post.

I merely respond to your hateful posts. A lot of other people do, too.

 

[it's just me]

So, you presume you have the right to bully others?



Did I say anything about doctrine? No, my word you're quite irrational at the moment. Anyway, I have no interest in engaging those who wish to start fights, so, I'll leave you to wallow in your anger.



Your behaviour clearly evinces otherwise, and I'll leave your so-called observations if you don't mind.

It appears that I dont need to tell you what I think, you'll tell me what I think.

 

[it's just me]

Do they?

Every one I've seen.

 

[NWO_Spook]

It appears that I dont need to tell you what I think, you'll tell me what I think.

These are my observations, take them or leave them.

Every one I've seen.

If you say so.

 

[it's just me]

These are my observations, take them or leave them.



If you say so.

Aside from the idiocy of telling me what I think or how I feel, I'll leave them.

And I do.say so.

 

[NWO_Spook]

Aside from the idiocy of telling me what I think or how I feel,

Not that I did that of course. You're obviously angry and irrational by your use of language and the erroneous conclusions you posited.

I'll leave them.

Good for you!

And I do.say so.

Why use full stops between words? Is this an 'anger' thing?

 

[it's just me]

Not that I did that of course. You're obviously angry and irrational by your use of language and the erroneous conclusions you posited.



Good for you!



Why use full stops between words? Is this an 'anger' thing?

It's called fatfingering on a tablet. That's a prime example of you seeing things that aren't there, and trying to read my mind. Can you do remote viewing, too? A lot of these people think they can.

Trust me, I wasn't trying to piss in your cornflakes, it's just a period that doesn't belong there.

 

[NWO_Spook]

It's called fatfingering on a tablet.

Whatever that is.

That's a prime example of you seeing things that aren't there, and trying to read my mind.

What? Simply asking a question?

Can you do remote viewing, too? A lot of these people think they can.

No, why would you think such a silly thing?

Trust me, I wasn't trying to piss in your cornflakes,

Whatever that means.

it's just a period that doesn't belong there.

Obviously, hence my question.

 

[code1211]

How so? Let's see you show how that is anything more than a placebo.

Outcomes are outcomes.

If the recovered alcoholic credits a particular entity for his sobriety, who are we to tell them they're wrong?

Have you ever known a person who was a drunk or otherwise afflicted and is now recovered after working through a 12-Step Program?

There are plenty around and they all seem pretty satisfied that they are helped by their "Higher Power".

 

[code1211]

Again, can you show it's more than a placebo? Do you know the success rate of AA? According to some studies, it's between 5 to 10 percent, sharply contrasting with AA claims

The Surprising Failures of 12 Steps - The Atlantic


Effectiveness of Alcoholics Anonymous (AA): Important to Know

If it is support of a program they have chosen to support, the mantra from Liberals is: "If it helps only one person..."

If 10% of those that need help find it, then this is good. Actually, on a dollar spent per cure basis, excellent.

 

[RAMOSS]

Outcomes are outcomes.

If the recovered alcoholic credits a particular entity for his sobriety, who are we to tell them they're wrong?

Have you ever known a person who was a drunk and is now recovered after going through the 12-Step Program?

Or any of the other recoveries in any of the other 12 Step Programs. There are plenty around and they all seem pretty satisfied that they are helped by their "Higher Power".

Yet, study after study shows that the 12 step approach only works for between 5 to 10 percent of the people. That's a negative outcome as far as see.

How Alcoholics Anonymous lied to the American people

 

[it's just me]

Whatever that is.



What? Simply asking a question?



No, why would you think such a silly thing?



Whatever that means.



Obviously, hence my question.

Fatfingering is mis-typing on a tablet, phone, or calculator, because your hands are too big for the keyboard.

And you didn't "simply ask a question" you asked a question accompanied by editorial comment that suggested you already knew the answer.

Finally, I thought anybody who can read minds can do remote viewing.

"Pissing in your cornflakes" is an idiom that means purposely being annoying.

 

[NWO_Spook]

Fatfingering is mis-typing on a tablet, phone, or calculator, because your hands are too big for the keyboard.

Thank you for the explanation.

And you didn't "simply ask a question" you asked a question accompanied by editorial comment that suggested you already knew the answer.

Prompted by the aforementioned observations, but it was still a question.

Finally, I thought anybody who can read minds can do remote viewing.

Well, I wish I could read some minds, for some would be a fascinating opus, others, not so much.

 

[it's just me]

How true. Believers are such hypocrites.

In your case, atheists are such liars.