Anonycat
Crusader
I have a treat for you, then. I've never done that, ever. Ready?
I'm an atheist. :crickets:
I'm an Ex Scn and Atheist - How many atheists are here at the board?
- Thread starter SuperPowers
- Start date
I have a treat for you, then. I've never done that, ever. Ready?
I'm an atheist. :crickets:
oneonewasaracecar
Gold Meritorious Patron
I have a treat for you, then. I've never done that, ever. Ready?
I'm an atheist. :crickets:
I find that offensive.
Mimsey Borogrove
Crusader
Then, would it still be self evident if I do all the evidencing for you?
Mimsey
Anonycat
Crusader
I find that offensive.
I tend to go between letting people down, and being repugnant. It's a niche skill-set.
oneonewasaracecar
Gold Meritorious Patron
If it was self evidence to me, you wouldn't need to prove it to me.
If it is only self evident to you but not me, then yes, I would need evidence.
Dulloldfart
Squirrel Extraordinaire
I get the gay bit, assuming you mean saying "I'm gay" to them. But how does the other one work? "He's a real wanker*" is common enough; "you're a wanker" makes sense if provocative; but "I'm a wanker" would seem to have little effect.
*Wanker is a term that literally means "one who wanks (masturbates)" but has since become a general insult. It is a pejorative term of English origin common in Britain and other parts of the English-speaking world, including Ireland, Australia and New Zealand. It initially referred to an "onanist" and is synonymous with the word tosser.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wanker
EDIT: Page 52 of this PDF (https://web.archive.org/web/2012030...A/Reports/ASA_Delete_Expletives_Dec_2000.ashx) gives a list of 28 objectionable words, and ranks them as to how offensive (in the UK) they are per surveys in 1998 and 2000. The top four for both years, in order, are cunt, motherfucker, fuck and wanker.
Paul
Last edited:
lotus
stubborn rebel sheep!
I was half serious half kiding
Some of those fanatics find very offending anything about sexuality and they disregard masturbation, and being gay, both as sins (perversion)
(Anything done out of reproduction activities in a frame of a marriage, performing the missionary position as fast as possible without lurking...lol is 'dirty')
They don't 'tolerate gays' withing their community, neither abortion.
It seems a ''gay'' is dangerous and may contaminate the community
They must emulate their mini clean microcosm (society) in our large societies, otherwise it seems they don't feel safe in our lost degraded societies...
(some of those believers my be more tolerant...but their preachers ensure the flock keep on target...)
Those are just IMHO
Some of those fanatics find very offending anything about sexuality and they disregard masturbation, and being gay, both as sins (perversion)
(Anything done out of reproduction activities in a frame of a marriage, performing the missionary position as fast as possible without lurking...lol is 'dirty')
They don't 'tolerate gays' withing their community, neither abortion.
It seems a ''gay'' is dangerous and may contaminate the community
They must emulate their mini clean microcosm (society) in our large societies, otherwise it seems they don't feel safe in our lost degraded societies...
(some of those believers my be more tolerant...but their preachers ensure the flock keep on target...)
Those are just IMHO
Operating Wog
Patron with Honors
I have a treat for you, then. I've never done that, ever. Ready?
I'm an atheist. :crickets:
I can feel you holding it in! You're going to explode!
Operating Wog
Patron with Honors
OK, I've complained about cranky atheists enough (to be clear, I'm a non-theist or whatever myself).
Here's the one problem I have with religious people...
I don't care if you believe what you believe. I don't really even care if you try to spread that belief and convince others. Most religions do that. Just stop when I say stop.
What bugs me the most is when religious people jump on and off the science bandwagon as it suits them.
A. God can't be proven or disproven. Science has no say over God. They are two separate things. It's all about faith.
This, I'm totally fine with. Believe what you want. Keep it separate from science. No problem.
B. Hey! Look! This study shows that praying for sick people actually makes them recover! See! What I believe is true! Hahaha! I got you now!
And then later it comes out that the study was rigged, poorly done, can never ever be reproduced, etc.
C. Whatever. Like I said, science and religion are two different things. It's all about faith. You can't prove or disprove it.
uh huh...
D. OH! They found Noahs ark! Finally, proof that the bible is true!
Oops, not a ship, just some rock outcrop or something.
E. Goto C.
Here's the one problem I have with religious people...
I don't care if you believe what you believe. I don't really even care if you try to spread that belief and convince others. Most religions do that. Just stop when I say stop.
What bugs me the most is when religious people jump on and off the science bandwagon as it suits them.
A. God can't be proven or disproven. Science has no say over God. They are two separate things. It's all about faith.
This, I'm totally fine with. Believe what you want. Keep it separate from science. No problem.
B. Hey! Look! This study shows that praying for sick people actually makes them recover! See! What I believe is true! Hahaha! I got you now!
And then later it comes out that the study was rigged, poorly done, can never ever be reproduced, etc.
C. Whatever. Like I said, science and religion are two different things. It's all about faith. You can't prove or disprove it.
uh huh...
D. OH! They found Noahs ark! Finally, proof that the bible is true!
Oops, not a ship, just some rock outcrop or something.
E. Goto C.
Mimsey Borogrove
Crusader
Actually - science is a religion. It has as many fixed ideas and sacred cows as any religion. Big bang? Walking on water and turning it into wine? Is there any difference? That crap falls under the "it's a miracle" heading. God can't be proven to exist. Neither can dark matter /energy. Oh - it's proven because gravity isn't strong enough to account for stellar motion. Yeah? What about the electric universe theory? Plenty of power there. But no self respecting scientist would stick his neck out and say the sun is an electrical phenomenon, rather than an unending H- bomb blast.
What kind of scientific quest is that? It's as bad as the pope jailing Galileo. ESP? Nope - it's hog wash. Can't see it so can't prove it. Oy vey!
Science has to wake up and cast it's dogmatic prejudices aside, and become what it claims to be - a quest to discover the workings of nature.
Mimsey
The holy trinity - from Greaser's Palace by Robert Downey Sr.
oneonewasaracecar
Gold Meritorious Patron
I liken the separation between science and religion like the door to your bedroom. The dog really wants to sleep on the bed, because it's comfy, warm and it smells like you.
So you catch your dog in the room and it runs out, hanging it's head. You close the door but you know the moment you it open, your dog will be straight on the bed again. Rinse. Repeat.
Francois Tremblay
Patron with Honors
Religion and science are not about the same thing at all. Religion is about myths and narratives. Science is about measuring reality and figuring out how it works.
A lot of what religious believers say is unscientific, and that's their fault. Religious believers should not meddle in the way we measure reality and deduce how nature works.
Writers can write amazing stories, but that doesn't mean we should look to those stories to predict the future or explain how reality works. If you do, you are a fool. Nothing can substitute for looking at the facts.
A lot of what religious believers say is unscientific, and that's their fault. Religious believers should not meddle in the way we measure reality and deduce how nature works.
Writers can write amazing stories, but that doesn't mean we should look to those stories to predict the future or explain how reality works. If you do, you are a fool. Nothing can substitute for looking at the facts.
Bill
Gold Meritorious Patron
Interesting thread. I was able to clarify my thoughts a bit from this discussion.
First, I find that I have no opinion about God. It isn't important to me. That means I'm not theist, atheist or agnostic. I really don't care.
Second, I don't think atheist is a scientific viewpoint. Technically, science is about the physical universe and "God", by definition (if you will), is outside of the physical universe. Technically, God created the universe and is, therefore, outside of it. That isn't my belief, that's just the way God is defined. Science can certainly "study" God if it wants to, it just won't accomplish anything.
I don't care what people believe about God. Whatever floats their boat. I have absolute no argument with any position.
But I see these three beliefs: theist, agnostic and atheist as religious opinions. Or anti-religious in the case of atheist. If someone has any opinion about God, that's a religious opinion. It isn't science - that's just silly.
My opinion only - from the outside of the discussion, if you will. I don't want to insult anyone or start an argument -- just stating my opinion.
First, I find that I have no opinion about God. It isn't important to me. That means I'm not theist, atheist or agnostic. I really don't care.
Second, I don't think atheist is a scientific viewpoint. Technically, science is about the physical universe and "God", by definition (if you will), is outside of the physical universe. Technically, God created the universe and is, therefore, outside of it. That isn't my belief, that's just the way God is defined. Science can certainly "study" God if it wants to, it just won't accomplish anything.
I don't care what people believe about God. Whatever floats their boat. I have absolute no argument with any position.
But I see these three beliefs: theist, agnostic and atheist as religious opinions. Or anti-religious in the case of atheist. If someone has any opinion about God, that's a religious opinion. It isn't science - that's just silly.
My opinion only - from the outside of the discussion, if you will. I don't want to insult anyone or start an argument -- just stating my opinion.
programmer_guy
True Ex-Scientologist
Many theists play the "level the playing field" tactic.
IOW, "some of my religious beliefs are wrong? Then I will poke some holes in current scientific beliefs/practices just to make it even".
Then, claim therefore that science is just another religion.
Anonycat
Crusader
Actually, they are not the same. Others have explained it, or better yet, go to a University and get a degree in science. Science is not equal to religious fixed ideas that don't change even after thousands of years, right? Science is always moving forward! As technology moves ahead, and great minds are with us, the possibilities are endless for us to discover.
You are grasping at conversational straws of you think the greatest minds alive today in science are equivalent to those convinced of walking on water. Please, check with a science expert, or do some research. I am actually blown away at the silly things you say. Like: ESP - no one can see it, so science hates it! WTF?
IMO, religion has dogma, and well worth abandoning, and should start getting into the real world. Science has none, and will seem infinitely more refreshing! And satisfying! Who got you into a religion vs science war anyway? It makes no sense. Now some relaxing music.
[video=youtube;XGK84Poeynk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGK84Poeynk[/video]
[video=youtube;DZGINaRUEkU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZGINaRUEkU[/video]
Last edited:
oneonewasaracecar
Gold Meritorious Patron
Many theists play the "level the playing field" tactic.
IOW, "some of my religious beliefs are wrong? Then I will poke some holes in current scientific beliefs/practices just to make it even".
Then, claim therefore that science is just another religion.
Exactly. Faith is belief in the absence of evidence and science is belief which is led by the evidence.
Scientists abandon ideas if the evidence falsifies an theory or if it supports a better theory. In religion, many religious people do abandon some of the ideas that have been falsified, but there is a continuum of acceptance of the original idea.
To take the example of Noah's Ark, there are some religious people that think that all species of certain types were put on the Ark and that all of these species exist today. Still others think that all species of certain types were on the ark, but their were less species and they have now had speciation events. Others see it as a metaphor.
There is nothing equivalent in science.
If science and religion were equivalent there would not be a complete consensus on the flat earth theory, the heliocentric model, the big bang etc, there would be a continuum of belief.
Anonycat
Crusader
Theist: I see it.
Agnostic: I've never seen it.
Atheist: Clear is not a colour.
Point being, If someone says that clear is not a colour, you cannot fairly force them into a color wheel discussion just because they perceive clear as not a colour. VERY different opinions, and 2 of 3 do not fall under the category of colour beliefs. Someone has presented the question, and everyone else in question is asked if they can see the emperors clothes. It's not fair to ask a question, and then blame others for thinking it's silly.
Bill
Gold Meritorious Patron
Strange. You seem to be responding to my earlier comment, but then nothing makes any sense. First, I didn't ask any question and, second, I didn't blame others for "thinking it's silly". Would you care to clarify what you're talking about?
Similar threads
