Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
"You seem to be suggesting that since Wikipedia may not be a reliable source for academic writing or research, it supposedly means Wikipedia is not an academic source at all."
This statement constitutes a False Dilemma.
Fail.
I (or at least five I could name immediately) could explain it to you. But you are so thick it would be a waste of time. I shall name you Osmium.
Are you proposing that all of the information coming from Wiki should be treated as accurate and thus no more sources of information are required? Or debated?
Wikipedia is reasonably an academic source, that may or may not be used as a reliable source for academic writing or research. Take from that what you desire.
I did not know you were made of wood.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CGyASDjE-U
That was a great one David.
Nyarlathotep, when are you going to install those 100-Agree, 1K-Agree, and 10K-Agree buttons. ;-P
rmfr
Ugh.
I just found out this guy is doing the exact same thing over at AF, and pretty much getting the same results and responses.
So for some unknown reason he has a raging hard on for "proving" that science is atheistic by nature.
Oh well....
Do you always resort to non-sequitur, when you are demonstrably shown to be wrong? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
He has an opinion he is entitled to. But others have the right to demonstrate that his opinion is flawed.
Yes, some persons here are so far unable to change their opinions, even despite the facts displayed before them.
If I saw any sensible evidence, I would of course not refuse to display my change of mind here, but I am reasonably merely reporting facts here, rather than feelings as some others here are clearly committing themselves to doing.
Bottom line is reasonably:
You are the one not being reasonable. Understand this, science is neutral on anything and everything. Science is just a process, a method.
If a body of water can drown a person, it is not anti-human. It is just water.
Why do you feel being "just a process" necessitates that that process can't be atheistic?
Are processes exempt from having properties? ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
[Wikipedia/Falsifiability]
@ Avant Brown
"Why do you feel being "just a process" necessitates that that process can't be atheistic?"
If I fry some eggs for an atheist, is the art and science of cooking atheistic?
If I fry some eggs for the Pope, is the art and science of cooking theistic?
That is the silly connection you are attempting to make. Cooking, just like science, is just a process. To what end that process serves is distinct from the process itself.
If science proves a god, then science is not theistic, it is still JUST a process.
For every sensible sequence of facts, one can conjure up a silly analogy.
Science does not accept, or occur on the basis of unfalsifiable deity concepts, a fact, that seems to be eluding you.
OH GOD! This guy is still at it? He is as dense as a creationist.
Let's examine the two behaviors below:
1. You've been rejecting the reality that Science is atheistic, whereby Science rejects unfalsifiable models such as deity models.
2. I've been supporting the OP, which underlines the thing you reject.
Who above seems like the creationist? ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
Yea Cognostic, still at it. I like to read patterns, and I expect this one to keep at it for many pages, attempting to force his opinion by sheer weight of posts.
Thus proving he is a Religious Absolutist. Just a child that has a boner for never-to-exist AI.
rmfr
Science does not fully reject unfalsifiable models, it simply slaps on an unproven label and sets them aside.
Scientists reject models in full, because of bias or ignorance. Science is a process, a process that cannot reject every type of deity. Science does not make choices. Therefore science cannot be atheistic.
You seem to be insinuating science is a thinking entity. If I was you, I would carefully examine my own beliefs about science.
atheistic
adjective
adjective: atheistic; adjective: atheistical
disbelieving or lackinɡ belief in the existence of God.
"the leaders of scientific thought are overwhelmingly atheistic in their beliefs"
Science doesn't believe. It does not choose. It does not think. It is a process, a tool. A tool that could one day prove a deity real.
I gave an example earlier:
-------------------------------
-------------------------------
-------------------------------
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
-------------------------------
Damn! Avant Brown is dragging this conversation in a million different ways. Someone needs to pin him down to his original assertion and not fall for his constant squirming, slithering away, and evasion tactics.
@ Cognostic
I already have, several times, across all of his threads. He is just being a childish, spoiled Religious Absolutist brat. He is being both ignorant (ig•nur•unt) AND ignorant (ig•nor•unt).
@ Avant Brown
Isn't that boner you have had for this bullshit you are spewing gotten to dangerous point where you should seek medical attention? I have heard if you have a boner for more than 4 hours...
rmfr
It's one thing to be ignorant, another to put your ignorance on display and wave it around like a Nazi flag in the middle of Berlin. Reminds me of this scene.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDnvXAkMnx8
It seems as if when you are demonstrated to be invalid, you resort to non-sequitur.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
As a new rule or rather suggestion, I urge responders to include sources/valid citations, as it is quite demonstrable by now that many feelings are intertwined in peoples' responses, devoid of many facts, especially when they avoid providing sources.
Please try to include sources/valid citations that seek to substantiate points, as often as possible.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Why? You neither read them or understand them. You even post videos that demonstrably negate the things you are saying as evidence for those things. You are either home schooled or a troll. No one is as ignorant as you pretend to be.
1. When I reported atheism to broadly mean lack of belief in deities, as I underline here, you falsely claimed that such definition clearly disregarded the OP. Instead, it showed that Science needn't propose some positive claim about the inexistence of deities, but instead, reject belief in the existence of deities, or unfalsifiable sequences such as God models.
2. You are consistently shown to be invalid, but choose to maintain trivially demonstrably erroneous beliefs, regardless of contrasting evidence.
3. It is time to be a bit more mature on these matters, it's time to provide sources/valid citations to your claims. I understand it may be tiring [or perhaps difficult?] to include citations in your arguments, but please do try. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
@ Avant Brown
Yet, you claim to be a PhD candidate and SWEAR that Wikipedia is an academic resource. Talk about invalid.
rmfr
That a resource is simplified, does not necessitate that is isn't academic. [WikiStudies/Wikipedia as a pedagocial tool]
Go ask your mentor PhD baby. I guarantee he will tell you he is rescinding your PhD candidacy.
rmfr
SCIENCE IS A PROCESS / TECHNIQUE: When I reported atheism to broadly mean lack of belief in deities, as I underline here, IT HAS NO ABILITY TO BELIEVE OR NOT BELIEVE.
How hard is this to understand.. "SCIENCE " can not, not believe in God or God's.
Pages