Atheism Vs. Anti-Theism

[Jobz]

Best meal of the day. Grab yourself some sugar.

For a really great, energizing breakfast mix that sugar with coffee beans. Crunchy, bitter and sweet, and you'll be bouncing off the walls for the rest of the damn day. We used to do that when we had to pull an all night code writing session for computer science class. Fun shit.[/off-topic]

 

[zacaron]

I am an athiest as well and i know what you mean my local paper (canadian) printed an artical saying that athiests lack of faith was causing the ressesion in america.
and its people like that, that piss me off because i dont try to force my lack of belife on others and i am tired of them trying to convert me.

 

[mtk2a]

lol. Then why is the atomic mass of an atom of hydrogen always 1.00794 amu? Why is the gravitational constant 6.67300 x 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2? Why are water molecules always composed of 2 hydrogen and 1 oxygen? Why does 2+2 always equal 4?

"ur wrong"

Well, despite your mixture of high and low brow; you fail to consider that all your maths are based on measurements, which are all manmade, so artificial.

2+2=4 is not based on measurements.

How long exactly is a second, without referring to any other measurement of time?

Measurement of time is related to atomic activity. Time is itself relative to the vibration of subatomic particles and therefore cannot be measured independently. Units of time are, as you say, artificial.

So, that would make velocity, displacement etc. all artificial as well. The units we give them are the average measurement we have observed; (And Quantum Physics/Higgs even squashes that), so it's not really a 'proof' for anything.

The individual measurements are not a proof for anything, but their consistency is evidence of order.

Additionally, if you could provide a single situation in which 2+2≠4, I would concede your contention of universal chaos.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

The individual measurements are not a proof for anything, but their consistency is evidence of order.

It depends on how you look at it. If I shuffle a pack of cards and find out that a 5 and a 10 are next to each other, which they will be a lot of the time, does that prove significant? Statistically it would be, but logically it wouldn't.

Given life survives based on it's order, but mutates at every step; the two can co-exist. If we were prone to order, check the boiling temperatures of twin hydrogens bonded with group 16.

From Tellerium to Sulphur, they form a regular pattern but then Oxygen departs completely from that 'law' to provide the basis for life. Proof of God's existence? Unlikely, but that's all we can really say.

 

[Simski]

If i were trolling i'd say something like "All atheists are retarded." I was commenting on my own observation of the massive ego stroking taking place. The fact that you take my comment as trolling only re-affirms the idea that you have a massive ego.

Well this has put me in rather much of a dilemma.
Nothing you've claimed obviously, my own claims.
If you wheren't a troll, you wouldn't have made a post that does not at all contribute to the subject, neither would it be offending to anyone reading it.
Yet again you confirm that you're a troll by slinging another insult at me.

Now the dilemma I spoke off:
If I had not responded to your post, it would mean I could not answer.
However since you're a troll, I'm obviously being trolled by doing so :/

Mjeh, I rather make a fool out of myself THAN LET SOMEONE BE WRONG ON THE INTERNETS.

My orignal comment was never directed at you, it was an observation of this thread in general. Per my response, the fact you took my comment as to be directed specifically at you shows how self involved you are to think that a random passerby would single you out; I only responded because you replied to my comment. To say my post was offending to others (specifically you and apparently no one else to warrant a reply) and therefore an attempt at trolling is ridiculous. It was only offending to you because you took it personally, and since you take such ambivalence as an affront the problem is clearly with you and you alone. I'm calling the kettle black, i.e. people affirming with like minded people about what they already believed. That is circle jerking, that is ego, and you have it too. Get over it.

The thing that made me think you were pointing me out particularly was that you posted it right below my one post where I agreed with another user.

While as you say that it might not have been directed at me, I still consider random offensive comments that are rather irrelevant and/or noncontributing to the subject to be trolling. So ya, trolling.

To be completely honest too, I was already set to offense mode when you replied.
Religious arguments really do bring out the worst in me.

 

[mtk2a]

The individual measurements are not a proof for anything, but their consistency is evidence of order.

It depends on how you look at it. If I shuffle a pack of cards and find out that a 5 and a 10 are next to each other, which they will be a lot of the time, does that prove significant? Statistically it would be, but logically it wouldn't.

Given life survives based on it's order, but mutates at every step; the two can co-exist. If we were prone to order, check the boiling temperatures of twin hydrogens bonded with group 16.

From Tellerium to Sulphur, they form a regular pattern but then Oxygen departs completely from that 'law' to provide the basis for life. Proof of God's existence? Unlikely, but that's all we can really say.

You woefully misunderstand me if you think I am trying to prove god's existence.

Inconsistencies in mankind's current knowledge of chemistry and physics prove nothing for your argument.

2+2=4

My arguments continue to stand until you provide evidence otherwise, I'm afraid.

 

[Moloch-De]

lol. Then why is the atomic mass of an atom of hydrogen always 1.00794 amu? Why is the gravitational constant 6.67300 x 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2? Why are water molecules always composed of 2 hydrogen and 1 oxygen? Why does 2+2 always equal 4?

"ur wrong"

Well, despite your mixture of high and low brow; you fail to consider that all your maths are based on measurements, which are all manmade, so artificial.

2+2=4 is not based on measurements.

How long exactly is a second, without referring to any other measurement of time?

Measurement of time is related to atomic activity. Time is itself relative to the vibration of subatomic particles and therefore cannot be measured independently. Units of time are, as you say, artificial.

So, that would make velocity, displacement etc. all artificial as well. The units we give them are the average measurement we have observed; (And Quantum Physics/Higgs even squashes that), so it's not really a 'proof' for anything.

To say it in three words: "Science, it works"
Maybe we have our Scientific units based on some unstable points; If we redefine the Time (second) it would also change the lightspeed OR the length (meter) and so on BUT it would still work afterwards. If we were just good at recognising paterns where there are none, science couldn't make predictions but it has proven to be able to. The "Cobe Mission" made messurements of the background microwave glow of the universe and got them exactly right(the uncertanty is so small you would rather spontaniouly explode right now reading this than doing such a prediction by guessing).
Sciens will never explain everything but it explains it in the best way any human can up to this point and if you play by the rules you first have to get your own theory to challenge the currend "champion".

 

[sequio]

.

Mah, it's all good. I wasn't trying to be offensive but I'm told it comes off that way sometimes.

 

[Jazzyluv]

because i think that people that believe in a God have made a stupid choice.... it's that simple.

I just dont see how you could not have made a stupid choice such as believe of god with the mountain of evidence against it, and the complete lack of evidence for it.

No one has provided a good argument for God based on LOGIC and FACTS.

That simple, if you believe in god, you are somewhat stupid.... regardless of intelligence.

Einstein was a dumbass too : )

theres no evidence for or against God
to the OP i respect ur beliefs and im a Catholic
to answer ur question as to why people seem so intolerant to you is because they're intolerant to everyone. Everyone is hated by someone. Every belief is stongly criticized at first. People with faith hate you. Christians were eaten by lions in Roman times.
It's the unfortunate way of the world.

There is no evidence for god, and their never will, nor against god, and their never will. But their is evidence against the bible, against the teachings, NOTHING in the bible has ever been recorded outside non-religious texts.

You know what i believe in... i believe that we come from leprechauns that jerk off in the cosmos. Gravity was invented by gypsies who weren't payed for their services so that got pissed off and made it to torture us for all time. Where people after they die go back through time and meet a big thing called, Lomo, he is a whale, and he commands the leprechauns. I believe in this, and there is no evidence against it, and no evidence for it.

Grow a brain, its a stupid belief system with no facts behind it.

 

[mtk2a]

lol. Then why is the atomic mass of an atom of hydrogen always 1.00794 amu? Why is the gravitational constant 6.67300 x 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2? Why are water molecules always composed of 2 hydrogen and 1 oxygen? Why does 2+2 always equal 4?

"ur wrong"

Well, despite your mixture of high and low brow; you fail to consider that all your maths are based on measurements, which are all manmade, so artificial.

2+2=4 is not based on measurements.

How long exactly is a second, without referring to any other measurement of time?

Measurement of time is related to atomic activity. Time is itself relative to the vibration of subatomic particles and therefore cannot be measured independently. Units of time are, as you say, artificial.

So, that would make velocity, displacement etc. all artificial as well. The units we give them are the average measurement we have observed; (And Quantum Physics/Higgs even squashes that), so it's not really a 'proof' for anything.

To say it in three words: "Science, it works"
Maybe we have our Scientific units based on some unstable points; If we redefine the Time (second) it would also change the lightspeed OR the length (meter) and so on BUT it would still work afterwards. If we were just good at recognising paterns where there are none, science couldn't make predictions but it has proven to be able to. The "Cobe Mission" made messurements of the background microwave glow of the universe and got them exactly right(the uncertanty is so small you would rather spontaniouly explode right now reading this than doing such a prediction by guessing).
Sciens will never explain everything but it explains it in the best way any human can up to this point and if you play by the rules you first have to get your own theory to challenge the currend "champion".

True. If science did NOT work, that would be the appropriate argument for universal chaos. The predictability of any naturally occurring phenomenon is evidence of universal or natural order.

 

[BardSeed]

Text.

There, not their. Use "their" when talking about ownership eg. Their bicycles were blue. I'm sorry but this really annoyed me.

 

[Uncompetative]

2 + 2 ≠ 4 in Base 3.

2 + 2 = 10.

 

[Jobz]

2 + 2 ≠ 4 in Base 3.

2 + 2 = 10.

^Win. That's about all that can be said.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

My arguments continue to stand until you provide evidence otherwise, I'm afraid.

LMAO.

So Science stands until it can be over-ruled by another Science. Well, I could refute every argument with the "brain in a jar", near mass-less atoms, time being an abstract concept used to measure an abstract concept, or basic probability mechanics, but I guess you can't fail to accept the evidence in front of your eyes.

Unless your drunk, or have a cataract, or are hallucinating...

As for Jazzyluv, Reductio Ad Absurdum again. Science can't DISPROVE religion, they can only use Occam's Law to say it's unlikely. So...how about we let people believe in what they want?

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

The predictability of any naturally occurring phenomenon is evidence of universal or natural order.

Like God?

What happens if Science is the Proof of God's Existence?

 

[mtk2a]

2 + 2 ≠ 4 in Base 3.

2 + 2 = 10.

Base 3 changes the terms of the statement 2+2=4, which assumes base 10.

In base 3, 2+2=10 and no other, which upholds my initial argument.

 

[mtk2a]

The predictability of any naturally occurring phenomenon is evidence of universal or natural order.

Like God?

What happens if Science is the Proof of God's Existence?

In my view, if there were such a thing as 'proof of God's existence', it would by definition be scientific in nature.

 

[Imitation Saccharin]

2 + 2 ≠ 4 in Base 3.

2 + 2 = 10.

^Win. That's about all that can be said.

Kant weeps tears of blood.

 

[mtk2a]

My argument has far less to do with "god" and far more to do with natural order vs natural chaos, if you hadn't gathered that yet.

 

[WhitemageofDOOM]

True. If science did NOT work, that would be the appropriate argument for universal chaos. The predictability of any naturally occurring phenomenon is evidence of universal or natural order.

The uncertainty principle says hi. Scientific proof the cosmos is not predictable. There is no Newtonian clockwork universe where the entire sum of history is deterministic, there is no 100% sure thing. Even the laws of physics as we understand them can change at random.
Given sufficient time to roll the dice chaos will inevitably produce a state indistinguishable from order, given beings designed to find patterns even pure chaos will appear to have an underlying order.

But there is no underlying order, no hidden variable, no rhyme or reason. There is chaos.