Jump to content

SkyHigh

Members
  • Posts

    279
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

769 profile views

SkyHigh's Achievements

Community Regular

Community Regular (8/14)

  • First Post
  • Collaborator
  • Conversation Starter
  • Reacting Well Rare
  • Week One Done

Recent Badges

28

Reputation

  1. Hahahaha , good one
  2. You've said some batshit crazy things before but blaming the metric system for gas prices maybe my new favorite. I'll put aside the fact that metric is objectively and demonstrably a far better system. That's like getting mad that im shorter in metric because i only measure 1.89 as apossed to imperial where im 6'3. I find it hard to believe that what you spout are sincere opinions and you're not just playing a character. Though I will thank you for reminding me why i stopped coming here
  3. First the theory of evolution(which is pretty well established) has almost nothing to do with origins of life(abiogenesis) Because it was an expansion of a singularity, there was no bang tide pools and hot springs. However, recently some scientists have narrowed in on the hypothesis that life originated near a deep sea hydrothermal vent. The chemicals found in these vents and the energy they provide could have fueled many of the chemical reactions necessary for the evolution of life." Funny no mention of pond or slime there What i was commenting on was the obvious lack of scientific understanding when one uses pseudoscientific terminology to describe complex theories they don't fully grasp, especially when it's to argue the existence of somthing that has zero scientific support the OP correctly states the atheists' Big Bang theory being touted in parts of academia Many religious people agree with both evolution and the big bang, and furthermore the notion that it's only "parts of academia" is a ridiculous claim. In conclusion neither of these theories in anyway disprove any god concept(which are by definition unfaulsifiable), and misrepresenting science just shows that some believers are willfully ignorant, of as you said "reality"
  4. Seems so, atheists are in no way a tribe. Atheism still only answers one question, do you possess a god belief? The moral values, ideologies superstitions, philosophical opinions, etc.. . vary widely amongst atheists. Again unlike a religion there is not one book that everyone follows, no authority we must abide by,no specific tenets or ceremonies, etc, etc, etc..... Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but understand that what you've put forth in this discussion, is nothing more than that ,your opinion, and does not correspond with the consensus of academia or that of the general public.
  5. No sir, I gave you a definition of atheism, you claimed it was incorrect with no supporting evidence other than random YouTube videos. Again please provide any actual credible source to substantiate your assertion that atheism is a religion.
  6. Geezs, you are so dishonest. I gave specific passages to support my claim, you tried to ignore them, by evoking the new testament by quoting jesus(golden rule), but you're so ignorant to your own holy book you don't even know that jesus was quoting Leviticus. Not to mention you still confuse Hawking and Dawkins(listening to an hour of a debate is a far cry from understanding their perspective) two men very different not only in there field of study, but also in their public personas and when yoy say things like the big bang was an explosion you just prove you know nothing about science. When you claim to already know the truth, you are by definition not open minded, and when you judge others to be evil, well lets just say that if your god exist we'll see each other in hell, but until then I will not engage any further with some as willfully ignorant as you
  7. 1. How some random people choose to express their atheism is of no consequence to me. Do you think these supposed pastors speak for an entire philosophy? Do you think these random people speak for atheism as a whole the same way the Pope speaks for Catholicism, or how the bishop of Canterbury speaks for the church of England, or better yet do you think the Pope speaks for all Christians? Of course not. 2. Nope, just the answer to one question, is there a god. You either believe there is one(theist) or you don't(A theist) 3. Dogma is defined(merriam webster) as 1a. Somthing held as an established opinion especially a definite authoritative tenet b.a code of such tenets c. A point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds. 2. A doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church. Please provide concrete examples of the doctrines of atheism. 4. Of course we all follow rules, the difference, mine can evolve, whilst yours are based on an unchanging book written thousands of years ago. 5,6. Not really sure what you're trying to say, but I'll give it my best shot. Yes all people live under moral and ethical guidelines, personally im a secular humanist, which apparently you (and the data) agree is superior by your statement that "atheists nations are more peaceful and law abiding then the god nations" 7. Again irrelevant 8. Please define "religion" as you understand it. Cheers SH
  8. When you imply I'm somehow demonic or evil, the conversation is over. I'll leave you with some food for thought, you should really at least attempt to understand others perspectives and not simply those who agree with you. Ken ham, eric hovind, ray comfort, etc... are con artists. Try reading anything by Dr. Bart Ehrman, or maybe "a brief history of time" by Stephen Hawking, or "the god delusion" by Richard Dawkins. At least then you won't sound so silly when you talk about people you've clearly never studied.
  9. With all due respect, your knowledge of the bible seems comparable to your understanding of science, wanting. So lets get specific. We could do this same exercise for many of the immoral actions of God in the bible, but lets stick with slavery. Please explain the love thy neighbor part of verses like Exodus 21 or Leviticus 25 and why a moral god wouldn't simply write thou shall not own people as property? Again, the real question is why do we care what the bible says at all? I have read multiple versions of the bible (en deux langues, I was raised by a french Catholic mother and a fundamental baptist father) and am more versed in the text than most professed Christians. The fact that there are as many interpretations as there are people that have read it, to me prove there is no truth in this work of fiction
  10. Atheism is not a religion, it is simply the answer to one specific question. Atheists have no dogmas, no rules to follow, no supernatural deities, no sanctified places, no prophecies, no ethical guidelines, no necessary organization, and I could go on.
  11. Even though definitions have nothing to do with country of origin here you go. Capitalism: the ability to create capital through privately owned industry based on individual intellectual property. Socialism: means of production controled by government, but still compatible with democracy and personal liberty. I.e property rights Communism: complete control of the economy including all property, and requires revolutionary acts. Now for definitions of more complex political or economic systems, country of origin can be important. I.e. mixed economy or social democracy, how would you define these terms comrade?
  12. First off, when you say things like "the slime in a pond" or that the Big Bang was an "explosion", you're just showing you ignorance of the scientific method, and to what science actually advocats (even putting aside the fact you confused Steven Hawkins with Richard Dawkins) When it comes to morals, secular humanity is by far a better system, the "God" of the bible is an immoral thug that condones slavery, rape and genocide. Finally the bible, why would an ancient book conceived by ignorant bronze age farmers, that contains numerous historical and scientific errors be a reliable reference?
×
×
  • Create New...