Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It is presented in that manner by its advocates. I employed the indefinite article deliberately so as to contrast the distinction between the truth no matter what it may be...and a representation of the truth, defended against all dis-confirmation.
Quote:
and you religious types aren't right just because you're the majority.
And what on earth gave you the idea that I am a religious type?
Wrong both times Mystic. The default position is not "We are not looking for a god" it is, "This is the way the world works, so far as we can tell".
That is the default, and anything more than that is up to the claimant to prove. This is quite simple, but you never seems to grasp it.
Arach could 'call out' those "New Atheists" who see the harm that religion causes and are trying to do something about it. A lot of people who have a beef with atheist activism do so. But the problem with him is that he makes all kinds of false statements about atheists and will not listen to correction.
Hi DOTL. Since I know you are intelligent enough to know better, I will assume you are just misreading or I have just poorly communicated it. The reason scientists give for not looking for a God or purpose for existence is they have no basis to expect to find one and it is not necessary to their work. As long as their concern is only HOW things operate and what laws and processes exist, they are correct. Atheists, especially my old friend Arq, think that automatically makes it a verified default position about the existence of God or a purpose for existence, which is preposterous since nothing about THAT is verified. It is just considered irrelevant to the pursuit of science.
Arach is just calling out the rabid anti-religionists among the atheists and the rabid fundamentalists among the theists. Religious fundamentalism poses a genuine threat to humanity and is a legitimate target, but NOT the existence of God. Militant secularism as it is being pursued poses its own threats to humanity and the potential dissolution of societal cohesion. Neither position has much to do with the existence of God.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
Wrong both times Mystic. The default position is not "We are not looking for a god" it is, "This is the way the world works, so far as we can tell".
That is the default, and anything more than that is up to the claimant to prove. This is quite simple, but you never seem to grasp it.
No, Arq, it is NOT the default for the existence of God because as you relentlessly point out, that is unknown and remains in the Gaps for God. "We do not know" is the default NOT "prove God exists or He doesn't." Your default applies only for the practice of scientific inquiry, period. They go out of their way not even to engage with the issue of God or a purpose for our existence.
I know how Gaylen mus feel trying to explain subjectivity to me. The results of scientific enguiry as the default explanation are logical first choice hypothetical explanations for what is unknown. The burden of proof falls on those claiming there is something else. What the scientists are looking for on not is irrelevant. What we know (which is materialism, so the term is used) is the default, and not what we not know. it is about atheism not having to prove anything and God -believers having to the proving.
I know how Gaylen mus feel trying to explain subjectivity to me. The results of scientific enguiry as the default explanation are logical first choice hypothetical explanations for what is unknown. The burden of proof falls on those claiming there is something else. What the scientists are looking for on not is irrelevant. What we know (which is materialism, so the term is used) is the default, and not what we not know. it is about atheism not having to prove anything and God -believers having to the proving.
Are you aware that whales have larger brains than humans? If you are, then I'm sorry that you don't even realize it's an interesting thing to ponder.
The size of the brain is not important.
The fact that we have hands to build telescopes, and a more complex language are just 2 of the reasons why we are in a better position to discuss the origins of the universe.
The fact that we have hands to build telescopes, and a more complex language are just 2 of the reasons why we are in a better position to discuss the origins of the universe.
Animals may not have telescopes but they could have natural senses to such a degree we would call them "psychic" in their abilities. Some atheists might even doubt that such abilities exist.
Many atheists seem to think that the mysterious area inside the circle in the video is not really that small for a human being. My point is, what does a giraffe think about that area? And what makes atheists think that human beings have a special ability to understand vastly more than about the universe than any other creature, potentially even everything there is to know? It seems kind of arrogant doesn't it? Really, they are just making assumptions about the universe based on very little knowledge, and projecting that onto the universe. Speculation is really just nonsense.
To me it's the same kind of arrogance that tells some people the earth is flat.
No, you don't understand - I live in the deep South and EVERYONE I know is religious. I have to overlook a LOT to appease or not upset anyone with my disbelief, especially on fb. Trust me, as an agnostic atheist I am not searching FB for religious mumbo-jumbo. Why does everyone think you are lying when you say something is happening to you on FB and they automatically assume it's your fault? I really dislike those kinds of people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gabfest
Does this tend to happen to you a lot?
What Northsouth is saying truly DOES happen with some people of Facebook. I saw very few of those religious memes until I made Facebook friends with a neighbor. She didn't post one once in a while. She posted them every day. One day I had eight of them show up in my news feed. It was useful to have my neighbor on my Friends list, so I finally removed her from my news feed. I made Friends with a former co-worker and saw the same thing happen (albeit to a lesser extent). Most of these things are "Shares" so you can block the source of the image instead of blocking the friend.
But, to directly answer the question, it can indeed happen to a person a lot. Regardless of a person's religious belief, some people don't want their Facebook experience inundated with religion-based memes.
This also happens with politics, sports, and social issues. Some people are virtually obsessed with one part of their lives and feel like they have to share it with everybody else. Some of us aren't interested in those aspects of their lives.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Or are you just a troll?
