It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

For you rationalists out there, how do you argue this point?

page: 4
4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 11:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch
Who are you to decide what is false and and illogical, seriously, who are you but another internet warrior.
A confessed atheist militant, like thats a badge


If someone were to say to you that "the Earth is flat", and decided it was a good idea to push that concept on everyone they can possible converse with, and also teach that notion to their children, and their children's children, then that is reason enough to decide to step in.

If we know for a fact that the Earth is not flat, then why should we respect that the people who do believe it is are pushing this false information on everyone they can get their hands on? If you want to believe that at a personal level, by all means do so. But, when you teach fallacies to everyone else and say "this is the truth!" that is when someone needs to prove you wrong.

It's not me deciding what is logical or what isn't, it is simply logic that does that falsifying on it's own.


Listen to the hyperbole, clear evidence that shows a possibility, now really....


originally posted by: borntowatch
I dont see the difference between you and the fundamentalists from Wesboro

They would say exactly what you have said only from a Christian fundamental viewpoint, and I would ask them the same question I asked you at the beginning of this post.

Wesboro would say They are correcting your false notion

They would say as you have you dont have the clear evidence, if it was clear it wouldnt be questioned as it is, it wouldnt be as so hotly disputed ot studied.


You're absolutely correct, religious folks always claim they have the truth. So why not actually go out and find out what is accurate and what isn't? The difference between religion and science is one makes claims and then finds what they consider evidence to back up those claims, and the other finds evidence and then comes to a conclusion as to what that evidence suggests.

Again, Science never claims to be "the truth", it's just our current most accurate tool for studying the universe around us.


originally posted by: borntowatch
You exaggerate the science to try and win, why do you have to win? Just let people believe, dont believe if you dont want.


When have I exaggerated any scientific finding? Could you support your claim, please.

It's not about winning or losing, it's about preventing misinformation from spreading. Again, you can believe all you want to believe, I have no problem with that and I have stated that before (yet you choose to ignore that because you have some sort of bias against me), it is only problematic when those beliefs are forced onto others that we have an issue.


originally posted by: borntowatch
As for anti misinformation, your scientific heroes have done their fair share of mis- information peddling at children and have made many errors that are still in dispute today


Again, it would be nice if you could back up your claims. Once again, science isn't a means to telling the truth to people, it is just a tool that we use to describe natural phenomena at the utmost accuracy we can, presently. No scientist will ever state that "this is absolutely 100% true/fact and will never be disproved", because science doesn't work that way.

In fact, the Scientific Method (the method of which every branch of science uses in order to form their conclusions in the first place) has a requirement in it that states that your conclusion MUST BE FALSIFIABLE. Meaning that it cannot protect itself from all criticism. If a theory or hypothesis is not falsifiable, it is not scientific. Which is why it would be irresponsible to claim something like "All swans are white" because one day we found a swan that wasn't white. The same thing is applied to each and every scientific theory.

Conversely, religion does the opposite. They claim that there is absolutely no way that their religion can be incorrect, and if something were to show that it is incorrect just "have strong faith in your religion" and those things don't matter.

Tell me you see an issue with this frame of mind?


originally posted by: borntowatch
Interesting to note that you are asking questions on the mind of God and the only place we find information on the mind of God is the scriptures, but you wont accept scripture?


When did I say I won't accept scripture? There is a problem with it, however, and that is no one even in the religion can agree that specific parts of scripture are accurate or not.

Again, the question really isn't about god at all, it is about omniscience. We don't need scripture to discus omniscience because omniscience isn't a concept that is solely within scripture.

The topic therefore is about if it is logical to state that "Omniscience and Free will are capable of coexisting", rather than "Is god omniscience? and, does this effect free will?"

This question was never written to be answered, its just to cause contention and animosity, well done




posted on Jun, 7 2015 @ 06:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ghost147

If someone were to say to you that "the Earth is flat", and decided it was a good idea to push that concept on everyone they can possible converse with, and also teach that notion to their children, and their children's children, then that is reason enough to decide to step in.

If we know for a fact that the Earth is not flat, then why should we respect that the people who do believe it is are pushing this false information on everyone they can get their hands on? If you want to believe that at a personal level, by all means do so. But, when you teach fallacies to everyone else and say "this is the truth!" that is when someone needs to prove you wrong.


You're absolutely correct, religious folks always claim they have the truth. So why not actually go out and find out what is accurate and what isn't? The difference between religion and science is one makes claims and then finds what they consider evidence to back up those claims, and the other finds evidence and then comes to a conclusion as to what that evidence suggests.

Again, Science never claims to be "the truth", it's just our current most accurate tool for studying the universe around us.


originally posted by: borntowatch
You exaggerate the science to try and win, why do you have to win? Just let people believe, dont believe if you dont want.


When have I exaggerated any scientific finding? Could you support your claim, please.

It's not about winning or losing, it's about preventing misinformation from spreading. Again, you can believe all you want to believe, I have no problem with that and I have stated that before (yet you choose to ignore that because you have some sort of bias against me), it is only problematic when those beliefs are forced onto others that we have an issue.


originally posted by: borntowatch
As for anti misinformation, your scientific heroes have done their fair share of mis- information peddling at children and have made many errors that are still in dispute today


Again, it would be nice if you could back up your claims. Once again, science isn't a means to telling the truth to people, it is just a tool that we use to describe natural phenomena at the utmost accuracy we can, presently. No scientist will ever state that "this is absolutely 100% true/fact and will never be disproved", because science doesn't work that way.

In fact, the Scientific Method (the method of which every branch of science uses in order to form their conclusions in the first place) has a requirement in it that states that your conclusion MUST BE FALSIFIABLE. Meaning that it cannot protect itself from all criticism. If a theory or hypothesis is not falsifiable, it is not scientific. Which is why it would be irresponsible to claim something like "All swans are white" because one day we found a swan that wasn't white. The same thing is applied to each and every scientific theory.

Conversely, religion does the opposite. They claim that there is absolutely no way that their religion can be incorrect, and if something were to show that it is incorrect just "have strong faith in your religion" and those things don't matter.

Tell me you see an issue with this frame of mind?


originally posted by: borntowatch
Interesting to note that you are asking questions on the mind of God and the only place we find information on the mind of God is the scriptures, but you wont accept scripture?


When did I say I won't accept scripture? There is a problem with it, however, and that is no one even in the religion can agree that specific parts of scripture are accurate or not.

Again, the question really isn't about god at all, it is about omniscience. We don't need scripture to discus omniscience because omniscience isn't a concept that is solely within scripture.

The topic therefore is about if it is logical to state that "Omniscience and Free will are capable of coexisting", rather than "Is god omniscience? and, does this effect free will?"

This question was never written to be answered, its just to cause contention and animosity, well done



If someone wants to believe the earth is flat and wants to teach that to their children its their right.
You are not the law, someone will teach the earth is round and the individual makes the choice
You infer you are the be all and end all of all wisdom

You sound like a dictator, you must have it your way.
People are allowed to be wrong, you are not God, You do not have the truth though you claim to (just as you say all religious folk claim).

Your argument is a strawman
Comparing a testable round earth to untestable theory is silly


Now I think your scientific method is akin to the belief in the flat earth, listening to you espouse that is as ridiculous as listening to an individual espouse a flat earth.
But hey you are allowed to be wrong so have at it

I wont fight you over your ignorances as I see them, but I will contest your arrogance to attack others for their beliefs right or wrong.

The thing is Ghost, you dont have all the answers yet act as if you do, you pretend or even possibly believe you do, that is scary.
As a christian I dont have all the answers, though I have enough information to be content. I think because I am content that burns you up inside.
Why
I dontknow.

All I see is you kicking and screaming at anyone who doesnt believe what you want to make them believe.

Just like those people from Wesboro
edit on b2015Sun, 07 Jun 2015 18:19:35 -050063020150pm302015-06-07T18:19:35-05:00 by borntowatch because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2015 @ 09:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: borntowatch
If someone wants to believe the earth is flat and wants to teach that to their children its their right.
You are not the law, someone will teach the earth is round and the individual makes the choice
You infer you are the be all and end all of all wisdom


I never stated or even implied that "I am the be all and end all of wisdom". However, we have enough ignorance and misinformation out there as it is, again, what is the problem with correcting that misinformation? Let's take a step back from the logic topic for a moment and say that a family is trying to instill racism, bigotry, hate, or intolerance to their children. Sure, they have the right to do so, but does that mean they should? Of course not. It should be prevented because we don't need anymore of those traits in this world, just as we don't need any more ignorance.


originally posted by: borntowatch
You sound like a dictator, you must have it your way.
People are allowed to be wrong, you are not God, You do not have the truth though you claim to (just as you say all religious folk claim).


Seriously? How many times do I have to explain that I never claimed "the truth" nor does science. I must have stated that 5 times by now in this 4 page thread. It's almost as if you have some sort of bias against atheists to simply ignore what I'm actually saying and just assuming that I am as bad as your bias claims me to be.

I have also stated that Science isn't absolute. It is designed to be fallible. How can I or science claim to be absolute when an intrinsic property of it is to ensure that it can be wrong?


originally posted by: borntowatch
Your argument is a strawman
Comparing a testable round earth to untestable theory is silly


Which theory are you referring to exactly? Because every scientific theory is testable.


originally posted by: borntowatch
Now I think your scientific method is akin to the belief in the flat earth, listening to you espouse that is as ridiculous as listening to an individual espouse a flat earth.


You can go ahead and believe that, although for your opinion to mean anything, backing it up with... lets say... Evidence, or at least context, would be helpful.


originally posted by: borntowatch
I wont fight you over your ignorances as I see them, but I will contest your arrogance to attack others for their beliefs right or wrong.


How is it arrogant to show that a claim is false? I've never stated that anything I accept is more powerful than anyone else's opinion. I fully admit that I can and have been incorrect. The difference when I am incorrect and when a religious person is incorrect is that they hold some emotional attachment to their belief system, where as in my position I have already accepted that any and all of my information has the chance of being false. So when I am incorrect, I can accept that I am incorrect. A religious person either has an extremely difficult time accepting the same, or they outwardly ignore reality to protect their beliefs.

Again, your bias is showing.


originally posted by: borntowatch
The thing is Ghost, you dont have all the answers yet act as if you do, you pretend or even possibly believe you do, that is scary.


So when I have stated Multiple Times that all my answers are falsifiable, and that science isn't based on truth, and that our way of evaluating the natural universe around us is simply our most accurate tool, but most definitely 100% accurate, that - to you - means that I am claiming to "have all the answers" or even "believe I do?"

Do you even bother to read my posts or does an "ATHEIST!" flag pop up on your screen and you just respond with whatever biased nonsense you usually spout every time you see a secular response?


originally posted by: borntowatch
As a christian I dont have all the answers, though I have enough information to be content. I think because I am content that burns you up inside.
Why
I dontknow.


Again, you assume far too much about my views on thing - according to your bias, of course. Believe whatever you wish, but you being content does not "burn me up inside".

I admit that it is frustrating is your rejection of reality despite the evidence. Although, you are completely untitled to reject reality all you want. What "burns me up inside" is that spread of rejected reality to innocent minds before they can even have the option of choosing for themselves.


originally posted by: borntowatch
All I see is you kicking and screaming at anyone who doesnt believe what you want to make them believe.


I know that's what you see. It's because you have this intrinsic bias towards Atheists for whatever reason.



posted on Jun, 8 2015 @ 01:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Ghost147

Just like you have an intrinsic bias towards those who believe in religion.

Since you have a strong preference for analogy (example: flat Earth and Free will)

The I bring forth the following analogy written with your own concept of right/wrong and ignorant/true into play

You say you are waging war against ignorance and discuss the arrogance of the religious. I say fair play. I have my own views of spirituality (ie: something sparked us off and now we do our best with minimal input from that authority)

So here is my analogy...We have testable and verifiable proof that the Earth is here and round. Ok I can handle that. We do NOT have testable and verifiable proof that the big bang was as we state it is. The fact is that cosmologists have a heck of an amount of faith. So we look at something like cosmic background radiation and temperature of space and say "now we know what happened in the first nanoseconds. But do we? We have faith in our scientific ideas that by measuring and observing CBR and temperature that we can translate that data into knowledge of our cosmic beginning. To me, while I adore science and completely understand that science and religion can exist, there is no proof that out assertion is correct about the big bang. We have guesses and we have what we think is proof but until we find some way to go back there and see it, I can't accept that as testable or provable.

But what of my analogy? Ok so we have the testable idea that the Earth is round. Ok I am aces with that. Now let's suppose a moment that the big bang WAS real. Who made the matter for the bang to occur? Who made the container that allowed a big bang? Say we are in multiverse or that that big crunch is next. Who created the potential for the multiverse or big crunch to exist? You say that the idea of free will and omniscience cannot coexist but the problem is your own bias is leading you to define it as you define it or to take the words of some as the words of all.

Problem is you could be 100% wrong and that Christian could be 100% right. Nobody is going to win this battle. You talk about correcting false notions. What if our entire science is wrong? What if our physical understanding of being is wrong? What if some brilliant mind who happens to be religious has found what he/she believes is the reality?

But mostly, we talk about fundamentalism and the inability to let people alone. You are doing precisely that right now and gently covering it up as "correcting false notions." That to me is as arrogant as any fundie argument I have heard yet. We know precisely jack squat on comparison to what truly is. I support your "idea" of free will or what is provable...what I don't support is your (or anyone's) "truth" of what is provable mostly because we are tiny beings. I don't care if someone's IQ is 210 or above or if someone is well-researched. It all crumbles to pieces and pales in comparison to all that is or was or will be. Not because we are not capable of learning, but because we are not capable of learning all.

All you think you know could be wrong and I've seen you repeat that if proven wrong you'd move to new reality...just offer yourself a chance to understand that what you have are ideas...nothing more. Same as myself and anyone else.

But please be careful painting an argument or arguer as arrogant when that same brush can fit you as well

Respectfully,

Kyo




top topics
 
4
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join