|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Problems with being an Atheist (or Evolutionist) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Artemis Entreri  Suspended Member (Idle past 4229 days) Posts: 1194 From: Northern Virginia Joined:
|
Are they camel rider's stories or Sumerian stories, because the Sumerians (5000 bce - 3000bce) didn't ride camels? The camel wasn't Domesticated (2500bce) until the reign of the Akkadians (3000bce - 2200bce), who came after the Sumerians.
Also interesting is that you mention Abrahamic religions, as Abraham was an Akkadian, and from thier largest city. So if I am to take that they are camel rider's stories, then yeah you are saying something that is obvious, as Akkadians rode camels and Abraham was an Akkadian, thank you master of the obvious. If you really meant the Sumerians, then why add in the camels, unless you really have no idea what you are talking about? Its always humorous that some one wants to point out my ignorance as a thiest, while showing thier ignorange of history, geography, and culture.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
saab93f Member (Idle past 1395 days) Posts: 265 From: Finland Joined:
|
Okay, I stand educated. However, if nitpicking is your best defence when theism is questioned...well, some defence.
My point still stands, if one is willing to cast aside everything science has given us instead of ancient (precisely so because the Bible as we know it was first put together in the Council of Nicea in 318 and ancient history ended in 476) scripture. I do not know ignorance if that is not it. Thank you for your adding my knowledge in the history of Mesopotamia.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nunquam Junior Member (Idle past 4718 days) Posts: 8 From: New Jersey, USA Joined: |
Stile writes:
Yeah, I don't believe in any sort of afterlife. I won't be missing anybody when I'm dead. It's just thinking about it now, while I'm alive, that sorta bothers me. If, indeed, you die and you do miss seeing your friends and family, then death is not "the end" and you are existing within some sort of afterlife, and what you think atheism entails isn't actually true. I really shouldn't call this a problem though. It doesn't bother me nearly as much as it did when I first became an atheist.
Stile writes:
It's all good. Happens to the best of us.
...and, this is the part where I would apologize for not reading your whole message before replying to the first paragraph and realizing that you already know everything I just talked about and likely have moved on from this issue on your own.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Artemis Entreri  Suspended Member (Idle past 4229 days) Posts: 1194 From: Northern Virginia Joined: |
I was just trying to correct your broad generalizations, and discrepancies about Theists, as if we were one unified group who all believe the same thing. For us TEs, theism and science are compatable, and one does not refute the other.
and BTW I was not nitpicking, I was simply correcting someone whom I thought was incorrect, and making grand generalizations, by mistake. If I thought you were purposedly making generalizations, then I would have called you a troll. Edited by Artemis Entreri, : spelling error
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Granny Magda Member Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.0 |
HI saab93f,
the Bible as we know it was first put together in the Council of Nicea in 318 I hate to continue the nitpick, but... no it wasn't. The Council of Nicea was, IIRC, concerned with defining the core principles of Christianity, particularly the divinity or non-divinity of Christ. The canon (as we are familiar with it) was formalised only when Constantine made Christianity the official religion of the Empire. Not trying to badger you. Just sayin'. Mutate and Survive Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
saab93f Member (Idle past 1395 days) Posts: 265 From: Finland Joined: |
Thank you for enhancing my store of knowledge. I am utterly sorry that I do not share the intimate knowledge in Klingon as some others do.
I understand that it would make conversation easier if all parties were on the same level of knowledge but I just havent been able to make up my mind on which story Id specialize in - LOTR, Star Wars, Harry Potter or Bible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Artemis Entreri  Suspended Member (Idle past 4229 days) Posts: 1194 From: Northern Virginia Joined:
|
Its cool, just stop saying things that aint so and pretending like they are. Every "nipick" against you sofar could have been found on teh internets in 5-10min.
I am as smart as google.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Well, you're right but I don't know why he even mention 'Tat for tit' it a discussion 'Tit for Tat' and I don't know that it would have any bearing on the success of 'Tit for Tat'. Tat for tit draws against tit for tat, since they alternate between defecting and being betrayed. If we assume being betrayed is worth 0 and betraying is worth 5 after 50 rounds we'd see 125 points each. Tit for tat against itself gets 150 points each under the same condition (cooperation being worth 3) Tit for tat against tit for two tats ends the same Tat for tit against tit for two tats leaves the score as 152 to tat for tit and 147 for tit for two tats. So if there were lots of tit for two tats in the pool of players, Tat for Tit would draw against itself (50 points if mutual defection is 1 point) and tit for tat but will win against all those tit for two tats out there. So Tat for Tit ends up winning more games than the others (though obviously it does relatively poorly against itself, so it should be rare if we are keeping a running total).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Big_Al35 Member (Idle past 800 days) Posts: 389 Joined: |
bluescat48 writes: I have no problems being an Atheist & Evolutionist whereas I had many when I was a theist/creationist, its called evidence. Evidence is not a problem. This is like saying that gravity was a problem before Newton proposed the idea. We weren't floating around before Newton came along.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4190 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
Me writes: I have no problems being an Atheist & Evolutionist whereas I had many when I was a theist/creationist, its called evidence. Big_Al35 writes: Evidence is not a problem. This is like saying that gravity was a problem before Newton proposed the idea. We weren't floating around before Newton came along. There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002 Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969 Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Big_Al35 Member (Idle past 800 days) Posts: 389 Joined: |
bluescat48 writes: Right evidence is not the problem, lack of evidence was. The courts are full of cases which due to a "lack of evidence" are unsuccessfully prosecuted. More usually however, there is overwhelming evidence for a successful legal challenge but the perpetrator still goes acquitted due to technicalities, poor lawyers, costs, or a failure to interpret the evidence. I wonder which of those applies in this case?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1255 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
More usually however, there is overwhelming evidence for a successful legal challenge but the perpetrator still goes acquitted due to technicalities, poor lawyers, costs, or a failure to interpret the evidence. Actually, it's quite unusual for a criminal case to be thrown out on a technicality, and I've never heard of a criminal case with overwhelming evidence being dismissed because of the cost. Poor lawyering skills are much more likely to result in a flawed conviction than an acquittal in the face of overwhelming evidence. It's also quite rare for a jury to misinterpret overwhelming evidence. There really is no limit to the shit you're willing to just make up, is there? Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus. -- Thomas Jefferson For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7 |
The courts are full of cases which due to a "lack of evidence" are unsuccessfully prosecuted. More usually however, there is overwhelming evidence for a successful legal challenge but the perpetrator still goes acquitted due to technicalities, poor lawyers, costs, or a failure to interpret the evidence.
Please provide evidence, statistics, studies or whatever you have to back this up. I won't hold my breath. Facts don\'t lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DevilsAdvocate Member (Idle past 3102 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: |
The courts are full of cases which due to a "lack of evidence" are unsuccessfully prosecuted. More usually however, there is overwhelming evidence for a successful legal challenge but the perpetrator still goes acquitted due to technicalities, poor lawyers, costs, or a failure to interpret the evidence. Even if this were the case, (which it is not) how does this apply to science? Science is not a courtroom. Legal burden of proof and scientific burden of proof are two seperate concepts with different measures and processes for attaining them. Legal burden of proof for a criminal cases depends on the ability to disuade a jury or jurist (or their equivalent) that the defendent is either innocent or guilty. The burden of proof lies with the claimant and/or his/her/their legal representative to show enough evidence that the defendant is guilty, and here is the caveat, "beyond a reasonable doubt". In civil cases the amount and quality of evidence needed is less than that in a criminal case (i.e. the preponderance of evidence) for obvious reasons. The burden of proof for science is a totally different creature. In science there is not guilty or innocent party. The burden of proof lies with the scientist (or group of scientists) confirming whether his/her/their hypothesis accurately depicts reality or not. If ANY evidence shows this hypothesis (or theory) to incorrectly depict reality than it must be modified or rejected. That is vastly different than the level of evidence needed in a criminal or civil court case. Hope this makes sense. Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given. Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given. "It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Big_Al35 Member (Idle past 800 days) Posts: 389 Joined: |
subbie writes: Actually, it's quite unusual for a criminal case to be thrown out on a technicality, and I've never heard of a criminal case with overwhelming evidence being dismissed because of the cost. Poor lawyering skills are much more likely to result in a flawed conviction than an acquittal in the face of overwhelming evidence. It's also quite rare for a jury to misinterpret overwhelming evidence. Theodoric writes: Please provide evidence, statistics, studies or whatever you have to back this up. Big_Al35 writes:
I won't hold my breath.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024