Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

A Simple Question To Atheist


Guest FaithDefender619

Recommended Posts

1. Yes

2. Yes

3. Somewhat.

4. Partially

5. To the best of human capabilities, yes.

 

Now how about you answer the same questions in regards to xianity... OH WAIT YOU CAN'T xianity doesn't actually have any evidence that can be peer reviewed or tested. What a drag.

 

:lmao:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 59
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Snakefoot

    8

  • Roan7995

    2

  • oddbird1963

    2

  • MeaMaximaCulpa

    2

Hmm. Looks like your 'presupposed answers' aren't really working out.

 

Guess that prepared speech about how we're wrong and all idiots because we don't know what we're talking about because we don't have any personal experience isn't going to work out.

 

What now I wonder? Guess it's taking awhile to write a new speech about how wrong we are.

 

Must be hard to make up a bunch of new stuff when the expected answers don't fall at your feet. I mean, I'm betting FD worked so hard copypasting his prepared statement from apologetic websites to crush us under his righteous boot heel once our collective 'nope, we never done no Science ah-hyuk' answers started rolling in.

 

Now we've gone and ruined all that by knowing what we're talking about. What a shame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Snakefoot got there before I did. Great questions.

OK, FaithPretender, what sayeth thou>?

 

It would appear FaithPretender is another hit-and-run coward, or stymied into silence by answers to which there is no reasonable retort.

 

Too bad. Poking at him would have been fun. :poke::pureevil:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Science is the only dimension that has a built-in system of bullshit protection.

 

Too bad religion never had that.

 

 

 

End of story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Valkyrie0010

I am not a scientist so I can't say I have done any of those things. Thanks for the originality by the way since it is almost a copy of the point that William Lane Craig made in his debate with Peter Atkins

But the challenge is absurd in many ways.

First the question is equally applicable to creationist "scientist" which for the sake of this reply I will assume you support. I hope when your done reading this you see a double standard here that you are applying.

Also this applies people who believe like(Gary Habermas for example) that there is evidence for the afterlife. This people "supposedly" have evidence, like scientists.

It also applies to ID advocates.

It also applies to cosmologist who support the idea of a creator like Bill Craig or I belive Richard Swinburne.

It applies to "your" own crowd.

 

You put faith(using your definition and reasoning) in the findings of these people(I assume), just as we do in say Richard Dawkins or EO Wilson or Stephen Hawking or even just the typical biologist or cosmologist.

 

Now of course you are going to say I just proved you cause I didn't

 

Because of things like

Evolution being scientifically "true"

The Big Bang happening

 

I think you get the idea.

 

I don't know enough to be an atheist.

 

But I do think atheism is way more likly then theism.

 

We only have a certain time to gather a certain amount of information

It takes abit of faith on both sides.

 

See the thing is that the argument for evolution and the big bang are way better then those that aren't

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since for the most part the answer is no, doesn't this simply equate to science is true because the scientist say so

Of course it doesn't!

 

Do you actually even understand what science is? Because based on this statement (not to mention how you structured your entire post with the questions as a lead in up to this nonsensical implication), it doesn't appear you do. :twitch:

 

Science is knowledge.

 

Which is acquired through the scientific method.

 

Which is the process of observation and experimentation.

 

Which, contrary to what you said, the conclusion of which may be true or false.

 

The reason the scientific method is valid is because (unlike religion) it incorporates silly things like evidence, observation, and rigorous testing of claims before they are validated. Or invalidated.

 

'Nuff said! :nono:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest I Love Dog

Hello all,

 

I've posed this question to atheist on myspace, youtube, allhiphop.com's fourms and usually have gotten the same answer. Maybe I can get a different answer here.

 

Since many atheist will tout the reliability of science (evolution/big bang/global warming) and so on I have a few questions to ask which will sum up to one basic question

 

1. Have you ever done the scientific experiments that you tout as being true?

 

2. Have you ever taken part in the peer review process?

 

3. Have you had any first hand contact with the evidence that supposedly supports evolution/big bang/global warming

 

4. Do you have access to the original test notes, know the processes used in doing the experiments, reviewed the source code for computer models etc?

 

5. Can you be 100% sure that money, politics or a combination of the two didn't have a factor in the outcome of that science

 

Since for the most part the answer is no, doesn't this simply equate to science is true because the scientist say so, which in turn equates to a religion or at the very least blind faith?

 

Oh dear, another one thinking that all atheists are scientists! Do all Christians have a doctorate in theology? No, of course not!

 

I'm not an atheist because of what scientists understand and believe, I'm an atheist because belief in invisible deities makes absolutely no sense at all and there is about as much evidence for a god or gods as there is for fairies and angels and demons and the devil; absolutely none, zero, zilch.

 

I see all the evidence as pointing to the Christian god as being invented, the same as all the other 30,000 gods on this planet in the past 6000 years. The Christian god, in particular, was so clearly invented by Canaanites/Hebrews, as Yahweh, their nastiest god, made in man's image(well, the Hebrew image, at least).

 

I really don't need scientists data and information to confirm my stance as an atheist. God/gods/devil/heaven/hell/angels.demons.....Inventions of man's crudest minds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(SNIP same old morontheist bullshit)

 

3 simple statements that deal with everything in the OP:

 

1. Scientific methodology makes sense.

2. Science works. The results are all around us.

3. You are a moron.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if faithdefender could disprove anything about science and evolution it does nothing to PROVE anything about Christianity. FD, it says in your profile that you came here to defend your religion - why not do so?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest I Love Dog

Even if faithdefender could disprove anything about science and evolution it does nothing to PROVE anything about Christianity. FD, it says in your profile that you came here to defend your religion - why not do so?

 

It's a bit difficult to defend anything when the only weapon that you have is a wet lettuce leaf.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if faithdefender could disprove anything about science and evolution it does nothing to PROVE anything about Christianity. FD, it says in your profile that you came here to defend your religion - why not do so?

 

It's a bit difficult to defend anything when the only weapon that you have is a wet lettuce leaf.

 

Put another way: A battle of wits is no fun when your opponent has no ammunition. :grin:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Have you ever done the scientific experiments that you tout as being true?

At school we did several experiments that validated many scientificprincipals.

 

2. Have you ever taken part in the peer review process?

Class discussions about our experiments and my grades were marked. I was able to challenge how my exams and reports were graded. I was asked to learn not asked to simply assume the teacher was right.

 

3. Have you had any first hand contact with the evidence that supposedly supports evolution/big bang/global warming

My most memorable visit was to a dig site at Carleton Quebec. There were fossils on display and we were encouraged to go to the actual cliff where fossils were found and dig for fossils.

 

Growing up on the Eastern coast, I have seen many fossils on beach rocks. They were always something different than anything living on the beach.

 

Before I ever learned about continental drift, I remember looking at a map of Eastern Canada and observing how it looks like a page that was pulled apart. It was if I were able to squish it all together.

During this same period, I also pondered how the moon seems to fit into the Pacific Ocean. I had no idea how shallow the ocean actually is compared to the diameter of the moon.

 

My point is... I thought for myself and what I observed aligned with what I was taught. My experience with the world has very little conflict with my experience with scientific understanding.

 

4. Do you have access to the original test notes, know the processes used in doing the experiments, reviewed the source code for computer models etc?

This is too specific for me to have experience.

 

5. Can you be 100% sure that money, politics or a combination of the two didn't have a factor in the outcome of that science

I have trouble with agreeing that this is a reasonable question. Most xtians don't accord me the same level of certainty that they ask of me. And besides, how do we measure certainty? It requires that you and I trust each other to be honest. Do you trust me to be honest?

 

The answer for the most part (maybe not you in particular but most xtians) is "no" so the rest is irrelevant.

 

 

Since for the most part the answer is no, doesn't this simply equate to science is true because the scientist say so, which in turn equates to a religion or at the very least blind faith?

 

Life is full of blind faith like the faith we have when we board an airplane. The blindness is more about individuals or goups. Is the pilot drinking? Is the plane well maintained? Did the regulators and inspectors do their job?

 

Is global warming a conspiracy? My experience with the world convinces me that it cannot be a conspiracy. Could scientests be fooled? I'm not willing to side with the scientests 100%. Skepticism is healthy.

 

Religion is all about accepting a higher authority even when your logic says otherwise. The bible is full of these stories like Moses parting the sea. Turning the other cheek is logical depending on how one looks at it but religion is about following the command to turn the other cheek even if you don't understand why.

 

Skepticism about religion is healthy too.

 

Mongo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest FaithDefender619

As has been said before, what makes science science is that it is testable and falsifiable. The point isn't that I haven't performed these experiments myself; it's that I could if I knew each step of the procedures used and had the tools necessary to do it. How, though, would one go about testing the claims made by religion? Please enlighten me if you have any ideas as to how this could be done, because if the claim that there is a god can't be tested, then it has as much (and as little) validity as the untestable claim that the world was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster in a drunken stupor.

 

No you couldn't there are experiments that require vast amounts of money, time and resources the average person doesn't have access to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As has been said before, what makes science science is that it is testable and falsifiable. The point isn't that I haven't performed these experiments myself; it's that I could if I knew each step of the procedures used and had the tools necessary to do it. How, though, would one go about testing the claims made by religion? Please enlighten me if you have any ideas as to how this could be done, because if the claim that there is a god can't be tested, then it has as much (and as little) validity as the untestable claim that the world was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster in a drunken stupor.

 

No you couldn't there are experiments that require vast amounts of money, time and resources the average person doesn't have access to.

 

What part of [if I] "had the tools necessary to do it" did you not understand?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could if I . . . had the tools necessary to do it.

 

No you couldn't there are experiments that require vast amounts of money, time and resources the average person doesn't have access to.

 

Reading comprehension: Get some.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As has been said before, what makes science science is that it is testable and falsifiable. The point isn't that I haven't performed these experiments myself; it's that I could if I knew each step of the procedures used and had the tools necessary to do it. How, though, would one go about testing the claims made by religion? Please enlighten me if you have any ideas as to how this could be done, because if the claim that there is a god can't be tested, then it has as much (and as little) validity as the untestable claim that the world was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster in a drunken stupor.

 

No you couldn't there are experiments that require vast amounts of money, time and resources the average person doesn't have access to.

 

Total lack of reading comprehension notwithstanding, is this really the only thing in the entire paragraph you're able to address? The only thing anyone has said so far you're able to address? Weak.

 

I'm all ears when you're ready to actually answer my question, BTW.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest I Love Dog

As has been said before, what makes science science is that it is testable and falsifiable. The point isn't that I haven't performed these experiments myself; it's that I could if I knew each step of the procedures used and had the tools necessary to do it. How, though, would one go about testing the claims made by religion? Please enlighten me if you have any ideas as to how this could be done, because if the claim that there is a god can't be tested, then it has as much (and as little) validity as the untestable claim that the world was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster in a drunken stupor.

 

No you couldn't there are experiments that require vast amounts of money, time and resources the average person doesn't have access to.

 

So which of the fabulously wealthy churches or incredibly rich people like Benny Hinn, Joyce Meyer, Ron Hubbard,etc.have gone to the trouble and expense of trying to prove that god exists?

 

They don't need to, do they, not while there are people around as gullible as you, people who believe anything that the good book and religious leaders tell you to believe,without any evidence whatsoever. If I tried to get people to invest their lives, time and money into my business I'd have to PROVE that it was not a scam or con. Not so religions, obviously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:scratch: this is delicate.

 

Faithbender is over there battered into an mental oooze. And really I havent much to say that is not more of the same.

 

I used to get SOOOOO angery at you atheist-types. Yet when apporached correctly a very spiritaul veiw of things can happen. I have had some fine spiritaul-like conversations with "atheist's" before when i could get past the irrelivence of my god's shoe size.

 

Poor ole guy. But maybe he can still save some face. Maybe he will consider the fine words already typed here. I will defend that he MAY have a lot of subjective interpretations of his scripture that express things we also could find true.

 

heh like, we are each others peer reveiw.

 

But he will have to clear up his business about absolutism. Maybe if he comes back he will ask some questions instead.

 

Praying in effigy for Faithbleeder.

 

izm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:scratch: this is delicate.

 

Faithbender is over there battered into an mental oooze.

 

<snip>

 

Praying in effigy for Faithbleeder.

 

izm

Oh, that's priceless. You made my day with this little phrase.

 

And you're right about abolutism. I equate most abolutism with "faith" although absolutism does encompass rigid doctrinal atheism.

 

When someone persists in insisting that their opponent cannot possibly understand or be correct, then there is no basis for discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since you want to be all accusatory like, well, you asked.

 

Also for full disclosure, I'm not an athiest, at least not a full-time one. I'd explain more fully but this is a) not the thread, and B) I don't think you have the humility to comprehend it.

 

...snippage for relevance...

 

1. Have you ever done the scientific experiments that you tout as being true?

Yes. I've worked in molecular biology, chemistry, astrophysics and cosmology.

 

2. Have you ever taken part in the peer review process?

I've been an author on papers before, and have a couple in the pipeline right now.

 

3. Have you had any first hand contact with the evidence that supposedly supports evolution/big bang/global warming

Yes, in terms of evolution, I've used an accelerated form to manufacture genetically altered cells. I've seen the data on global warming first hand, as well as the simulation codes (as well as their verification protocols, and yes they're solid). Cosmology, I've only dealt with simulation, though I have also seen nucleosynthesis first hand (i.e. nuclear reactions), with a serious amount of shielding, admittedly.

 

4. Do you have access to the original test notes, know the processes used in doing the experiments, reviewed the source code for computer models etc?

I write the source code for computer models. I've cross-verified stuff in my field(s). I know the process, and in a couple of minor instances, have written my own protocols. In other words, yes, I've dealt directly with a subset of them. As far as the whole kit-and-kaboodle, then no, but then again, I'm not a historian.

 

5. Can you be 100% sure that money, politics or a combination of the two didn't have a factor in the outcome of that science

Given that I've used the stuff effectively, and since the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology (all related) can't be bribed, then yes, I can be 100% sure that the outcomes were not affected, ultimately. Historically, yes, politics has resulted in questionable theories, but also these theories are falsified and discarded like the trash they are. I.E. unlike Christianity's track-record, we're actually pretty good at catching frauds, as opposed to promoting them to positions of power.

 

Since for the most part the answer is no, doesn't this simply equate to science is true because the scientist say so, which in turn equates to a religion or at the very least blind faith?

Well, since my answer is yes, what say you. This is hardly needs to be a matter of faith given that I've actually done the work and do actively work in the field. I can't wait to see how you try to wiggle and squirm out of this one and attempt to invalidate what I do day-in and day-out. Something tells me that your pride is going to force you to try, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BG, out of your entire wonderful post, this is what FD will hit on.

 

As far as the whole kit-and-kaboodle, then no, but then again, I'm not a historian.

 

*FD voice* Well, then you have faith in it don't you?

 

Blah, blah, blah...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

notblindedbytheblight: Yes, I guess he could try to seize upon that. With the exception that seeing the original notes is irrelevant, journal articles are frequently reprinted and also frequently require translation. Unlike a faith-based system where one just has to accept or reject a statement, it is possible to get to original notes (or at the very least original citations), if someone wants to, in other words, it can be looked up to see exactly what was noted down initially.

 

Also, repeatability and all that. And yes, I either have the resources at my disposal, or can acquire said resources, or can jury-rig some equivalent equipment.

 

I also half-expect a "climategate" related response (though the outcome that FD will completely ignore mine seems more likely, and convenient). Other likely avenues of attack are accusing me of lying about what I do, accusing me of lying about available resources, or some other variation of fabrication. There is a high probability he will take issue with my tone of voice, and what (s)he will likely view as belittling of mental faculties. Also, an end-run will be attempted due to me stating that I am not an Athiest (well not a full-time one anyway), while it is also clear that I am not a Xtian either. There is an extremely low probability, though nonzero, that FD will attempt to engage in a honest dialogue.

 

Just as they approached with a disingenuous argument, and one apparently made in bad-faith, I see no reason why that behavior will change, if nothing else, so FD can somehow feel vindicated and lie to him or herself that they have indeed achieved victory. That is usually how these sort of posters pan out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I notice FD has tucked his tail and ran here in the thread he started and is only coming to the theological forum. :shrug::HaHa:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear FaithDefender619,

 

 

1. Have you ever done the scientific experiments that you tout as being true as to the existence of God?

 

2. Have you ever taken part in the peer review process proving the existence of God?

 

3. Have you had any first hand contact with the evidence that supposedly supports the existence of God?

 

4. Do you have access to the original test notes, know the processes used in doing the experiments, reviewed the source code for computer models etc that show the existence of God

 

5. Can you be 100% sure that money, politics or a combination of the two didn't have a factor in the outcome of that science which shows the existence of God?

 

If you're willing to put the existence of God up to the rigors of science, by all means, please do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear FaithDefender619,

 

 

1. Have you ever done the scientific experiments that you tout as being true as to the existence of God?

 

2. Have you ever taken part in the peer review process proving the existence of God?

 

3. Have you had any first hand contact with the evidence that supposedly supports the existence of God?

 

4. Do you have access to the original test notes, know the processes used in doing the experiments, reviewed the source code for computer models etc that show the existence of God

 

5. Can you be 100% sure that money, politics or a combination of the two didn't have a factor in the outcome of that science which shows the existence of God?

 

If you're willing to put the existence of God up to the rigors of science, by all means, please do so.

 

You/we are wasting our time. He is not going to respond because he cannot give honest answers without shooting himself in the Habakkuk and getting the holy Deuteronomy kicked out of him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.