|
Post by kiwibloke on Nov 21, 2017 8:30:00 GMT
There is a scientific measurable reality to our material world. I haven't a clue what lies behind it but it is most certainly no god. It has none of the attributes of any of the gods we have configured to date.
|
|
Mocha
Full Member
Posts: 194
Likes: 128
Meta-Ethnicity: Coffee
Ethnicity: Caffè Latte
Ancestry: 90% Milk / 6% Cocoa Powder / 4% Espresso
Relationship Status: Caffeinated
Age: Freshly Brewed
|
Post by Mocha on Feb 9, 2018 1:20:41 GMT
You're posting this on a forum, over the internet, using a computer, with peripherals, citing a color video, on YouTube, and of those things, none existed 200 years ago. Last semester, my history professor lectured on multiple civilizations known for less than a century. Nearly every single week he would go over new archaeological findings. I also took linear algebra that semester. Many of the things I learned in the course are hardly a century old, although you can argue over whether mathematics counts as a science. Ever heard of a little planet called Neptune? We've only known about that minor detail for under two centuries. Pluto, Eris, literally the entire Kuiper belt, Oort Cloud, TNOs, SDOs, KBOs, all the Os. Stellar classification. Literally every single one of the thousands of discovered exoplanets, of which every single one has been known for not thirty years. PT1 hasn't even been known for four years yet and we're already sending a fucking probe there. In not 11 months from now, you're gonna see high-resolution photos of another KBO. I own a book written by a guy who's discovered 37 TNOs. Every last one of them has been known for fewer than two decades, let alone two centuries. Him and Batygin discovered the clustering of TNOs just under two years ago, let alone two centuries. I have witnessed with my own eyes a planet and many moons known for not two centuries. Comparative linguistics has only existed for a century and a half. Glottalic theory has only existed for a few decades. Lambda calculus has existed for just 90 years, and its usage in linguistics and computer programming has existed for far less. We haven't been able to even read Egyptian, Maya, and many other scripts for more than two centuries, let alone learn their history. Typology. No no, not that one, but that's also existed for under two centuries too. If you honestly believe science has accomplished nothing in the past two centuries, I would suggest you stop living in the 19th century and join the rest of us. those discoveries might be useful propaganda, but its largely just babble, science either has a fundamental linchpin to do with uncovering the fundamental operation of reality, or it doesn't; generating more superfluous details about a clockwork universe, without any insight into the principles of the operative mechanics, is like a culinarian inventing different ways to end up with the same baked cake that tasted bad to begin with. And again, the difference between computers in this age and the lack of computers 200 years ago, is nothing to do with scientific advancement, discoveries in Astrology that you cite had nothing to do with improved technology, and I gave an account of this, of which you either didn't comprehend or think that table thumping is good enough to overcome; make a real argument on my line of thinking, but don't concoct specious indictments that haven't even touched on how I treated the subject. You literally conflated every point I painstakingly delineated, so I expect your next response will be equally as inane as the nonsense you just tried to pass off that you think diminishes my claims by offering science's adoption of humanity. It's like your're a Cryoptian in the Superman comic books, and you actually believe everything Brainiac says carries the force of truth and progress, and that worshiping Brainiac is the only progress that humanity can hope to be invested in; have a nice ride with your brain dead bandwagon. I suspect I'm really wasting my time now, because I expect whatever follows to be even more intellectually dishonest. I tried working with this, but sorry, I have to say this: of which you either didn't comprehend
You're absolutely right, I don't comprehend - mainly because the other part of this paragraph was completely incomprehensible. I can't even disagree with the paragraph - I can't, because it's gibberish. And I'm not saying that to be an asshole. I tried asking a couple others what they thought you meant and they apparently agree (Except they didn't phrase it as nicely as 'agree'). You literally conflated every point I painstakingly delineated,
I don't think you know what 'painstakingly' means if you don't see any issues (spelling, grammar, logic, factual, or otherwise) with both your prior post and this one. To be clear: I have no issue with an error or two here or there, but it's really hard to follow when something's riddled with errors. and you actually believe everythingGuess what? I don't have to believe these things, because I can go and observe these things for myself. We have photography of TNOs, exoplanets, etc. I've used lambda calculus, matrices, etc countless times - they work! Maybe someday I'll even visit Mohenjo-Daro, but I doubt that will be in the near future. If I believed everything I was told, I would still be a christian! Even setting all that aside for a moment - this post is about atheism. Atheism and science are not the same thing, although I'm fine with discussing either. You should really learn what words mean before you use them - it doesn't look very professional. And I'm not just talking about "science" - I'm talking about "Astrology", "propaganda", etc. This is just a recommendation - you can take it or leave it. Regardless, we have a problem here - your points are unclear. I can't even really discuss anything, because there's nothing to discuss.
|
|
|
Post by zangthemidday on Feb 9, 2018 18:28:18 GMT
Drawing out false distinctions that have no bearing on matters is a scientific past time; observations are meaningless unless you believe in the rigor of scientific methodology, the efficacy of which is the core subject of my 'incomprehensible/unclear claims', I'm sorry that any challenge to your dogmatic, pseudo-religious and pseudo-intellectual worldview is so shocking to you, I guess you should go back to surrounding yourself with the safespace comforters of 'everything science has advanced in the last 200 years'.
There is nothing to discuss, talking to blind faith zealots such as yourself is a waste of time, you have literally conflated thinking about the scientific method with the core notion of all epistemological authority, you don't even pause to consider 'philosophy', why would you, when "observations" can do all the philosophy you might ever need, with 200 years of science to help you feel better about your dogmatism.
the meme.. Don't talk to me or son ever again. is really quite appropriate in such circumstances, idiocracy also comes to mind when I'm forced to exchange on such a deplorable level of group-think masquerading as having seized the moral high ground. I won't respond to any further of your autistic gainsaying, this thread is about atheism after all, which means autism and epistemological silliness is supposed to be respected I suppose (my youtube voice note deals with this separate topic, but seems to come through pretty strongly in your intellectual vacuousness).
|
|
Mocha
Full Member
Posts: 194
Likes: 128
Meta-Ethnicity: Coffee
Ethnicity: Caffè Latte
Ancestry: 90% Milk / 6% Cocoa Powder / 4% Espresso
Relationship Status: Caffeinated
Age: Freshly Brewed
|
Post by Mocha on Feb 9, 2018 19:31:59 GMT
Drawing out false distinctions that have no bearing on matters is a scientific past time; observations are meaningless unless you believe in the rigor of scientific methodology, the efficacy of which is the core subject of my 'incomprehensible/unclear claims', I'm sorry that any challenge to your dogmatic, pseudo-religious and pseudo-intellectual worldview is so shocking to you, I guess you should go back to surrounding yourself with the safespace comforters of 'everything science has advanced in the last 200 years'. There is nothing to discuss, talking to blind faith zealots such as yourself is a waste of time, you have literally conflated thinking about the scientific method with the core notion of all epistemological authority, you don't even pause to consider 'philosophy', why would you, when "observations" can do all the philosophy you might ever need, with 200 years of science to help you feel better about your dogmatism. the meme.. Don't talk to me or son ever again. is really quite appropriate in such circumstances, idiocracy also comes to mind when I'm forced to exchange on such a deplorable level of group-think masquerading as having seized the moral high ground. I won't respond to any further of your autistic gainsaying, this thread is about atheism after all, which means autism and epistemological silliness is supposed to be respected I suppose (my youtube voice note deals with this separate topic, but seems to come through pretty strongly in your intellectual vacuousness). Okay, well when you can think of any point of discussion you are free to run it by this thread again.
|
|
bluesreligion
Junior Member
Posts: 65
Likes: 57
Religion: Not Religious
Age: 34
|
Post by bluesreligion on Feb 21, 2018 12:51:02 GMT
Another atheist checking in for my card. There's no good evidence for the existence of a god.
|
|