!! an atheist knows what's gonna happen to him after death!!

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by scifes, Jul 20, 2009.

  1. scifes heckle the snobs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,555
  2. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,822
    once you've spent some time here, you'll realise that most atheists [at least the ones representing atheism here] are propounding literalist materialist empiricism. Except when it comes to all the things they believe :D
     
  3. spidergoat alien lie form Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    46,890
    I believe all that exists is matter.


    Baroon Mux
     
  4. StrangerInAStrangeLa SubQuantum Mechanic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,425
    -=-

    Does it matter?
     
  5. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    16,739
    ? That seems to be pretty wildly off target.

    What most of them seem to be objecting to is a dogmatic literalism and assignment of empirical significance to the accounts in books of fable and story.

    I think if the general run of theist areound here were prepared to accept the relegation of deity to the realm of metaphor and immaterial ideal, much of the apparent conflict would vanish.
     
  6. StrangerInAStrangeLa SubQuantum Mechanic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,425

    You propound nothing but beliefs you can't explain, evidence you can't produce, absurd assinine assumptions, obtuse obfuscation, disdain for logic & rabid hatred of atheists. And various wild insanities such as kneejerk attacking someone who has just mentioned they are persecuted.

    BTW, you're giving moral support to someone who proudly proclaimed he stopped thinking long ago & said that belief producing happiness is more important than belief being truth. Do those apply to you?
     
    Last edited: Jul 21, 2009
  7. scifes heckle the snobs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,555
    many things are immaterial and there's no empirical evidence to support them, yet humans believe in them because of altered material things, because of the effects they leave.

    an example is: what's the empirical evidence between a sane person and an insane person?


    you forgot being a coward snuggling in a hole:D
     
  8. StrangerInAStrangeLa SubQuantum Mechanic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,425
    -=-

    No, I didn't.
     
  9. Enmos Moderator

    Messages:
    42,963
    Nicely put, Ice.


    Insanity is no longer considered a medical diagnosis but is a legal term in the United States, stemming from its original use in common law.[3] The disorders formerly encompassed by the term covered a wide range of mental disorders now diagnosed as organic brain syndromes, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and other psychotic disorders.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_illness
     
  10. scifes heckle the snobs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,555
    yeah i know..(?)

    what i meant is you can tell a the difference between a sane and insane person by examining the effects of sanity upon a that person's behavior..

    if you crack up their skills and compare their brains, you won't find any difference.

    empirically, there is no difference between the sane and insane.

    so empirical evidence as an ultimate proofing method is a failure.

    that's what people in general see, and atheists don't.
     
  11. Enmos Moderator

    Messages:
    42,963
    Yes there is.
    Besides, is there a point to this ? Where are the effects of God on the world ?
     
  12. scifes heckle the snobs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,555
    WOW! interesting..can you tell me of them?-no need for links and stuff-
    um, like it being created? like it being here?
     
  13. Enmos Moderator

    Messages:
    42,963
    Would you like to support that with some evidence ?

    How is 'it' being here any indication of a god having effect on 'it' ?
     
  14. StrangerInAStrangeLa SubQuantum Mechanic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,425
    -=-

    Here we go again. And again&again&again&again.
     
  15. scifes heckle the snobs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,555
    sure, there's plenty, but the easiest is:

    anything sophisticated in our world is created by someone.

    nature is the most sophisticated, no one know that better than scientists.

    hence, nature needs a creator.

    i've answered that.


    besides enmos, it's not fair asking me for evidence for what i say and you not providing for what you say.

    i said: no empirical evidence to define sanity.

    you said there is.

    i asked for examples, not even evidence, and you just ignored it.

    everyone ignored my prized philosephy which is also a proof of god, simplified in this post..

    others not only do this, but even ignore evidence when i DO present them with it and they change their claims and just change the subject.
     
  16. Enmos Moderator

    Messages:
    42,963
    You call that evidence ? :roflmao:

    As for the difference between sane and insane being empirical, I'm really not required to evidence that because it's off-topic.
    But I'll humor you:

    em⋅pir⋅i⋅cal
    –adjective
    1. derived from or guided by experience or experiment.
    2. depending upon experience or observation alone, without using scientific method or theory, esp. as in medicine.
    3. provable or verifiable by experience or experiment.

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/empirical
     
  17. scifes heckle the snobs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,555
    yes, what's wrong with it?:mad:


    :eek::eek:
    then i mistaked it for a method going only by tangible evidence, lots of the terms used in sciforums are new for me.
     
  18. Enmos Moderator

    Messages:
    42,963
    What's wrong with it is that it's not evidence. It's just unfounded assumption.
     
  19. scifes heckle the snobs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,555
    how is it unfounded? and an assumption?
     
  20. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,127
    That isn't evidence. That is a view of the world from faith based dogma. It completely ignores everything from an evolutionary standpoint and the mountains of evidence attained thereof.

    Firstly, you would have to understand evolution to see how complicated (sophisticated) organisms come from simple beginnings. Over many generations, very small changes or mutations in the organism give rise to increased complication until after many millions of years we have a complicated organism.

    In it's most rapid advancement, an organism in which it's generation can span less than a year would see the development of the eye in less than a quarter-million years.
     

Share This Page