Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Problems with being an Atheist (or Evolutionist)
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4229 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


(2)
Message 106 of 276 (565006)
06-14-2010 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by saab93f
03-18-2010 2:47 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by saab93f, posted 03-18-2010 2:47 AM saab93f has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by saab93f, posted 06-15-2010 1:55 AM Artemis Entreri has replied

  
saab93f
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 265
From: Finland
Joined: 12-17-2009


(1)
Message 107 of 276 (565152)
06-15-2010 1:55 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by Artemis Entreri
06-14-2010 10:24 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Artemis Entreri, posted 06-14-2010 10:24 AM Artemis Entreri has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Artemis Entreri, posted 06-16-2010 9:30 PM saab93f has not replied
 Message 110 by Granny Magda, posted 06-17-2010 11:25 AM saab93f has replied

  
Nunquam
Junior Member (Idle past 4718 days)
Posts: 8
From: New Jersey, USA
Joined: 02-10-2009


Message 108 of 276 (565279)
06-15-2010 6:52 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by Stile
03-20-2010 4:51 PM


Re: Death, The End, and Atheism
Stile writes:
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.
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.
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:
...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.
It's all good. Happens to the best of us.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Stile, posted 03-20-2010 4:51 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4229 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 109 of 276 (565449)
06-16-2010 9:30 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by saab93f
06-15-2010 1:55 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by saab93f, posted 06-15-2010 1:55 AM saab93f has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 110 of 276 (565497)
06-17-2010 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by saab93f
06-15-2010 1:55 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by saab93f, posted 06-15-2010 1:55 AM saab93f has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by saab93f, posted 06-18-2010 1:23 AM Granny Magda has not replied

  
saab93f
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 265
From: Finland
Joined: 12-17-2009


Message 111 of 276 (565563)
06-18-2010 1:23 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by Granny Magda
06-17-2010 11:25 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Granny Magda, posted 06-17-2010 11:25 AM Granny Magda has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Artemis Entreri, posted 06-18-2010 9:42 AM saab93f has not replied

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4229 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


(2)
Message 112 of 276 (565588)
06-18-2010 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by saab93f
06-18-2010 1:23 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by saab93f, posted 06-18-2010 1:23 AM saab93f has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 113 of 276 (567365)
06-30-2010 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Statman
01-22-2010 9:25 AM


Re: iterated dilemmas
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).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Statman, posted 01-22-2010 9:25 AM Statman has not replied

  
Big_Al35
Member (Idle past 800 days)
Posts: 389
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 114 of 276 (568726)
07-14-2010 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by bluescat48
12-08-2008 7:43 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by bluescat48, posted 12-08-2008 7:43 PM bluescat48 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by bluescat48, posted 07-18-2010 9:50 AM Big_Al35 has replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4190 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 115 of 276 (568847)
07-18-2010 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by Big_Al35
07-14-2010 10:57 AM


Clarity
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.
Right evidence is not the problem, lack of evidence was.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Big_Al35, posted 07-14-2010 10:57 AM Big_Al35 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Big_Al35, posted 07-19-2010 6:46 AM bluescat48 has not replied

  
Big_Al35
Member (Idle past 800 days)
Posts: 389
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 116 of 276 (568950)
07-19-2010 6:46 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by bluescat48
07-18-2010 9:50 AM


Re: Clarity
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by bluescat48, posted 07-18-2010 9:50 AM bluescat48 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by subbie, posted 07-19-2010 4:21 PM Big_Al35 has not replied
 Message 118 by Theodoric, posted 07-19-2010 5:02 PM Big_Al35 has replied
 Message 119 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 07-19-2010 5:49 PM Big_Al35 has not replied
 Message 124 by Modulous, posted 07-20-2010 1:37 PM Big_Al35 has not replied

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 117 of 276 (568995)
07-19-2010 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by Big_Al35
07-19-2010 6:46 AM


More of Big Al's fairy tales
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Big_Al35, posted 07-19-2010 6:46 AM Big_Al35 has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 118 of 276 (568996)
07-19-2010 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by Big_Al35
07-19-2010 6:46 AM


Re: Clarity
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Big_Al35, posted 07-19-2010 6:46 AM Big_Al35 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Big_Al35, posted 07-20-2010 8:56 AM Theodoric has replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3102 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 119 of 276 (569002)
07-19-2010 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by Big_Al35
07-19-2010 6:46 AM


Re: Clarity
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Big_Al35, posted 07-19-2010 6:46 AM Big_Al35 has not replied

  
Big_Al35
Member (Idle past 800 days)
Posts: 389
Joined: 06-02-2010


Message 120 of 276 (569086)
07-20-2010 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by Theodoric
07-19-2010 5:02 PM


Re: Clarity
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Theodoric, posted 07-19-2010 5:02 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by Theodoric, posted 07-20-2010 11:15 AM Big_Al35 has not replied
 Message 122 by Theodoric, posted 07-20-2010 11:35 AM Big_Al35 has replied
 Message 125 by subbie, posted 07-20-2010 3:02 PM Big_Al35 has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024