- 1,716
- 11
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2011
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: this_feature_currently_requires_accessing_site_using_safari
info?Originally Posted by Sighfur
On a spiritual tip, what do you guys think about the Flower of Life, and the theories behind that?
long time coming but dude snappedOriginally Posted by B Smooth 202
Its funny how these idiots are supposed atheists and spend a good part of their time on Niketalk defending their idiotic views.
This dude sillyputty posts about other topics JUST to meet his quota to be able to talk about HIS favorite subject, atheism, and how flawed and completely wrong it is.
He is seriously a pest and a grievance to the community. He contributes nothing further than his mechanical argument often repeating the same, tired, public school science curriculum terminology in every rebuttal. It's weak, and exposes the shallowness of western education and his own personal intellect.
You and those who think like you are a waste of human intelligence and the epitome of the same hypocrisy you claim to be so critical of by declaring yourself an 'atheist'.
It makes it even worse when you perceive yourself to be more intelligent than others when you couldn't be MORE wrong.
So why don't you do us all here on NT a favor and kill yourself and find out. Your annoying as hell.
Its funny how these idiots are supposed atheists and spend a good part of their time on Niketalk defending their idiotic views.
Originally Posted by B Smooth 202
Your a joke. You claim an agnostic point of view and 'we don't know', yet your always on NT fighting the good atheist fight spewing your CRAP, while your native country burns to the ground.Originally Posted by AntonLaVey
I like to thank Yahweh for all the success I've had till this point in my life. And to my fellow men who have not experienced the same level of success, tough luck. Everything happens for a reason.
I am a slave to Yahweh and atheists eat children on their spare time and no amount of education, thinking or good deeds can change that.
YAHWEEEEH YAHWEEEEH!!!!
You've got nothing to say about that though do you? Of course not.
You'd rather continue arguing about something you've already determined we don't know exists instead of intelligently discussing what we DO know exists.
Thats why your nothing but a clown. Continue your attempt to mock true belief, jester.
Originally Posted by Boys Noize
long time coming but dude snappedOriginally Posted by B Smooth 202
Its funny how these idiots are supposed atheists and spend a good part of their time on Niketalk defending their idiotic views.
This dude sillyputty posts about other topics JUST to meet his quota to be able to talk about HIS favorite subject, atheism, and how flawed and completely wrong it is.
He is seriously a pest and a grievance to the community. He contributes nothing further than his mechanical argument often repeating the same, tired, public school science curriculum terminology in every rebuttal. It's weak, and exposes the shallowness of western education and his own personal intellect.
You and those who think like you are a waste of human intelligence and the epitome of the same hypocrisy you claim to be so critical of by declaring yourself an 'atheist'.
It makes it even worse when you perceive yourself to be more intelligent than others when you couldn't be MORE wrong.
So why don't you do us all here on NT a favor and kill yourself and find out. Your annoying as hell.
Originally Posted by JohnnyRedStorm
Balance needs to be present. B Smooth is super-God.
Originally Posted by So Nyuh Shi Dae
What will end up being more entertaining is when people of different religions get into a discussion.
FrankMatthews wrote:
sillyputty wrote:
Are.
You.
Serious?
Science is not a "thing"...its the pursuit of understanding how something works.
Is the lack of an AIDS vaccine a failing of science?
I guess the introduction of Anti-retrovirals in the mid-90s means NOTHING to you.
We should have thrown our hands up back in the 80s when AIDS exploded (traced actually to the early 1900s in Congo) instead of trying to save lives. Its God's will at that point, right?
There are tons of things in medicine that work that we can't explain...but THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT WE CANT figure it out sooner or later. We didn't even understand how Gram-Staining literally worked until the late 80s...and we had been using it for close to 100 years to identify and categorize bacteria and other microorganisms.
Perhaps you misinterpreted my response because you basically reiterated what I meant: "There are tons of things in medicine that work that we can't explain...but THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT WE CANT figure it out sooneror later." Sums up my exact statement which you questioned my seriousness on. Maybe "failing" was the wrong word. It's inability to explain something at a particular point in time due to lack of technology or human brain power doesn't mean that it won't be explainable sooner or later. Exactly. I'm not advocating whole-heartedly "believing" any and everything just because one day anything could theoretically be proved. All I'm saying is I would like to keep an open mind to the possibilities.
And please don't interpret this to mean that I want to keep open the possibility of some man in the clouds that deserves my worship, or any specific religious doctrine. I am speaking to science in general.
...Try to figure it out?
And what is your fascination with cytochrome C?
Whats your point?
The point is they have been trying to figure it out for awhile now, the origins of cytochrome C, how the body creates it.
Science can't just figure everything out is what I am getting at( but they will sooner or later, maybe).
Not saying science
is wrong or that we should completely abandon it but it points to it's fallibility.
I don't think it's the be all and end all.
Not to mention it's occasional bias, potential subjectivity, and the fact that it is limited by the human brain's level
of comprehension.
I didn't insult religious people.
I said that saying "god did it" was lazy and stupid. I didn't call you lazy or stupid. I said the IDEA was lazy and stupid, and I stand by that.
While I completely agree with the idea being lazy and stupid, calling someones ideas lazy and stupid
is an insult as well.
Additionally, a factual statement can be an insult.
What you deem "necessary" is merely YOUR personal preference, not an objective one.Above all it is unnecessary to speak
to people in that manner. Ultimately that's your judgement call though.
If we can't explain something, we say "we don't know"
I don't know why our noses are angled the way they are. But thats not going to stop me from trying to figure it out.
Not being able to explain something doesn't mean that there is no answer. It just means that you have to keep working until you get it.
Agree with all the above. Based on your retractment below I think this is resolved.
I don't understand how the lack of knowledge at one point in time equates to the unknowable...
Not inherently unknowable, unknowable at the time due to our capabilities. Which I feel
could apply to some spiritual principles or what are perceived as such. Again, this
statement doesn't apply to a man in the clouds or jesus christ, etc...
Are you going to keep pushing the goal-posts further and further back with each advancement in scientific understanding? When we figure out the next big hurdle will you admit that there is one more thing that we don't understand? Will you just keep saying we don't know this one thing? What will you say when we figure it out?
Shouldn't we keep doing that? Should there ever come a time when we concede that we know enough?
Either there are things we
don't understand (or scientists don't understand) or there aren't.
I swear...you really think that because we don't understand where cytochrome c originates that signals a hole in science?I'm not talking about waiting for established scientific fact to be debunked.
I am more referring to the unknowns, the cytochrome C's of the world.
You're innocent until PROVEN guilty.
That means that you are charged with doing something, and the experiment, or trial, must establish the validity of the claim that you are guilty. Otherwise, you are free to go.
If the claim that you are guilty is not proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, then you are not proven guilty.
That is how science works. If I make a claim that the eye can see UV light then it is my responsibility to prove that claim. If I do not prove that claim then the claim is unsubstantiated and can not be accepted.
Yeah I should have saw that coming. My point is that you don't want the jury to have their mind made up
EITHER WAY before the trial begins. Maybe a bad analogy
Creativity is spurned by manipulating what already exists.
Every invention is a build upon something that exists currently.
Name one truly novel innovation that is independent in both origin and structure.
Everything, comes from something else or some existing understanding. It builds upon prior entities.
Creativity is limited by reality however. You are limited by what you have and the resources you encounter and forms of capital at your disposal.
That's all fine and good but first and foremost there needs to be a drive to create or discover.
Say if every scientist on the planet
was an atheist and they all took your point of view, they don't know if god exists but they don't believe so. Would science
ever even attempt to prove god? (humor me and assume that it was somehow possible to prove god with science)
I mean would there
be a motivation to do the work? I think saying "I don't know but anythings possible" would foster more development than "I don't know, I
don't believe".
You have to let various possibilities enter your brain for you to make any meaningful discovery. Again, this is not about a man
in the sky. You can substitute deep sea life for god if that helps illustrate the point any better.
If you assert that god creates everything and this is your form of creativity...then please, explain how you arrive at this answer and what implications that involves. Explain what processes are used and how this can be applied to other areas. Explain what you mean and how it changes things. Until you can support this notion, then your notion is not accepted.
I don't assert that god created everything. I have various different scenarios that seem plausible to me, some of which involve"god", some
of which don't. I'm with you, I don't know who or what created everything.
If you want to believe in your god, go ahead. I won't stop you. But until your god is proven to exist or has characteristics that can be accepted or measured in consistently verifiable ways, then your theory will remain unsubstantiated. It will not be adopted on the LACK of evidence, as will any other unproven or untenable claim. You can try for the rest of your life to prove your claim. I encourage you to do so. Never stop searching.
I don't have a god per se. I have a very broad scope of what could/should/would constitute a higher power, or "god".
In my mind if an alien
life form had any hand in human development then they could be considered "god", however unlikely.
I might be willing to consider some
form of energy as a "god". Sub-atomic particles could be "god". I could be "god"! Every humans collective conscious could be "god". multi-dimensional beings could be "god"
Additionally, I am fully aware that these are unsubstantiated theories AT BEST.
I would never expect someone to adopt them, nor do i adopt them myself. I would in no way classify these as my beliefs, merely possibilities that I ponder on from time to time.
But until you find that proof, it won't be accepted. Remember that. No one will take you seriously without evidence to support ANY claim you make. Any. Claim.
Nor should they. Fully aware and agree 100%, I don't take it seriously myself. As stated earlier, for me the biggest thing is keeping an open mind.
Is it technically wrong for me to assert that god does NOT exist? Yes. So I apologize.
Thank you! This is the main thing I was getting hung up on. If you just stated "I do not know but do not believe"
I think a lot of drama and criticism in your threads would disappear. That was a very good clarification. Completely
reasonable stance as well.
However, you do not KNOW that god does exist either. You do not KNOW this fact. You are an agnostic.
You do however BELIEVE that a god exists. You are a theist.
You are an agnostic-theist.
You do not know that a god exists, but you believe that one does.
Well I don't want to argue semantics but when you speak of beliefs, I tend to view that as absolute or conclusive.
I consider
the vast majority of things of this nature to be possibilities, not any particular thing I "believe" as it were. I would correct you
to say that I am simply agnostic, with no particular belief but a consideration of a wide range of possibilities that include theist
and atheist ideals
I didn't call anyone any of the aforementioned name, so don't make that mistake again. Thats a serious charge in these threads with Mods and I won't let you get away making those sorts of wild assertions. Especially if i'm going to be held to that standard.
You've called me personally both ignorant and foolish just in the past week.I can link you if you like. Or was it my ideas you
were criticizing?
It seems, all along, that you didn't even really know what my ideas were, hopefully they are a little more clear to you now, perhaps that was my fault.
Either way, I find it unnecessarily disrespectful, we can have a civilized debate without resorting to such language.
I just think its pretty improbable that the god of the bible, quran, etc exists in the form that they say it does. Until a case is presented to sustain those claims then I won't believe in them.
I agree 100%. I don't see how any logical human being could find it probable. As I said, I like to keep an open mind but those particular "beliefs"
are probably the furthest from the things I consider plausible possibilities.
I didn't belittle anyone.
I didn't insult anyone.
I didn't make fun of anyone.
Furthermore if you're THAT concerned with the validity of my arguments, why don't you spend more time addressing the content of my points and not their context.
I realize that it may not have been your intention, nor do I particularly care what you say about me or my ideas. I care
more about fostering a healthy, mature debate. I think it would enhance the presentation of your content if you tried
to be a little more aware of the context it may be received in. But that's JMHO
Originally Posted by B Smooth 202
Its funny how these idiots are supposed atheists and spend a good part of their time on Niketalk defending their idiotic views.
This dude sillyputty posts about other topics JUST to meet his quota to be able to talk about HIS favorite subject, atheism, and how flawed and completely wrong it is.
He is seriously a pest and a grievance to the community.
Your opinion.
He contributes nothing further than his mechanical argument often repeating the same, tired, public school science curriculum terminology in every rebuttal.
Where is the error in those tenets?
It's weak, and exposes the shallowness of western education and his own personal intellect.
How can I correct my stance and according to what outlines?
You and those who think like you are a waste of human intelligence
95% of the Academy of Science are atheists. ...the other 5% probably don't work in the hard sciences.
Its no matter though, this is again your opinion.
and the epitome of the same hypocrisy you claim to be so critical of by declaring yourself an 'atheist'.
My understanding of conventional grammar prevents me from understanding what you're saying here.
It makes it even worse when you perceive yourself to be more intelligent than others when you couldn't be MORE wrong.
I never have said that I'm smarter than anyone or more intelligent. I simply state my views. I don't list my credentials and I don't reveal my bias unless asked.
I only care about the facts.
If you think i'm wrong, please tell me where I made the mistake.
So why don't you do us all here on NT a favor and kill yourself and find out.
I encourage you to express yourself as much as you can as long as you don't infringe on my property or my physical rights.
I don't think your opinion is the general consensus though.
This does raise an interesting point though...its you that believe in the afterlife...why aren't you trying to get there sooner?
Your annoying as hell.
Incorrect: Your =/= You're
Correction: You're = You are
Again, this is your opinion.
I hope this was therapeutic for you.
haha no it wouldnt, and they wouldnt, who said there can only be one true faith? you? believers arent like non believers, non believers would believe if there were proof right?Originally Posted by Boys Noize
You have to admit, it would be interesting (and entertaining) seeing believers of different religions debate the merits of their own beliefs. I mean, there can only be one true faith right? If the Christian god is real, that invalidates the Hindu gods, the Greek gods, etcetera etcetera. One of the points that has been made before (and one believers kind of just glaze over) is that most, if not all, believers are just like non-believers...with the sole difference being non-believers believe in one less god.
Originally Posted by RKO2004
Science doesn't believe what it can't prove but some how, some way, science of recent times has somehow proved the age of the earth and how old some other things are without having starting point that someone else can verify. Science is a bunch of guesses. Sometimes accurate and sometimes not.
People came up with a system to calculate the age of past things but how we really know its ALL correct?
Do you believe in unicorns or Shiva? or Zeus?Originally Posted by RKO2004
Science doesn't believe what it can't prove but some how,�
some way, science of recent times has somehow proved the age of the earth and how old some other things are without having starting point that someone else can verify.
Science is a bunch of guesses. Sometimes accurate and sometimes not.
How else do you learn?
Does the bible have ALL the answers?
People came up with a system to calculate the age of past things but how we really know its ALL correct?
Radioactive decay of the half-lives of elements.
They follow logarithmic curves.
If you want explanations, ask.
or seek explanations yourself
�
How many science courses have you taken?
When and what were they?
Originally Posted by RKO2004
Science doesn't believe what it can't prove but some how, some way, science of recent times has somehow proved the age of the earth and how old some other things are without having starting point that someone else can verify. Science is a bunch of guesses. Sometimes accurate and sometimes not.
People came up with a system to calculate the age of past things but how we really know its ALL correct?
Originally Posted by RKO2004
Science doesn't believe what it can't prove but some how, some way, science of recent times has somehow proved the age of the earth and how old some other things are without having starting point that someone else can verify. Science is a bunch of guesses. Sometimes accurate and sometimes not.
People came up with a system to calculate the age of past things but how we really know its ALL correct?
Very cool question.Originally Posted by Jerome in the House
Cool question for the believers that also believe in aliens. Do aliens read the bible too? Do they all have a "savior" "prophets" or whatever?