Yes... Why, yes I would. Have you ever heard of gravity? It is demonstrable. Jump in the air and feel the force that brings you back to the ground. Have your friends try it. Anyone can do it, even your pet. That's called an objective truth.

Wait, what? So you don't think we should have correct all the "scientific" errors people made in the past? *Earth is flat*-*Zeus shot thunderbolts down to create lightening*-*Earth is center of universe*

How about the moral/ethical stances from the past? You don't think we should have corrected those either? Since your stance is "You can't tell them what they believe is wrong..." - With that attitude, we would still have slavery, human sacrifice, animal sacrifice(even worse IMO), oppression of women, black people segregated and not being able to vote(+more), women not being able to vote, holy wars (we still have this), suppression of science/art/literature (we still have this), pro-life fanatics who are against condoms (this still happens)

Should I keep listing things, or do you want to change your stance on what we can or can't tell people in regards to how wrong they are in what they belief and why...

i thought the talk was really interesting, and while i didn't experience any sort of revelation of my personal ideas and opinions it was definitely entertaining. i'm kinda disappointed the tower of babel didn't really come up, i thought that'd be interesting to hear about. so i guess the only thing left to do is binge on old bill nye the science guy episodes.

holy shit i thought the thread arguing about fat shaming and transgender people was bad but oh my god what a disaster

how people are so narrow minded is beyond my level of comprehension

Look, you're still operating under a scientific framework here. Empirically (which assumes you can find actual, objective truth by experiment), an objective truth would indeed be a fact that's possible to be confirmed by experiment. But, as with all systems of knowledge, it's possible to reject the axioms the scientific method is founded upon. Why would I be pulled towards the earth, even if it's happened every time before? That's not a rethorical question, and the answer has to be 'Because we can find the way the universe works by way of experiment; what has happened multiple times in the past is likely to happen again'. Surely you see that this isn't the only valid point of view. I, for one, find it easy to believe that the universe isn't completely structured in a way that can be understood by humans, who are part of the very system they're trying to unravel.

It's easy to ridicule others because they place unquestioning faith in a book; but please recognize that your own basic assumptions are only supported by themselves.

I'm atheist but I can still appreciate some parts of religion because it kinda turns me on when a girl gets all Jesus lovin'.

edit: taken out of context

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSANExayQkHuSBd2WOfqj1-286pnnuitQCjfKMNhg_j4hv95zmH

Keep listing things. Make yourself feel important. Either way I'm not going to tell anyone what you can or can't believe in. That's the type of behavior that people go to war about... Thanks for letting me know how gravity works by the way, really cleared up everything I feel like you really are an all knowing human, I should just put my beliefs aside for your vastly superior grasp of reality. Your objective truth is unquestionable!

the scientific method is the single most reliable method of distinguishing what is real from what is not. the scrutiny of an idea involved throughout the scientific community and consensus is astounding, it is not just a few tests. the same proposition being put to test by all types of scientists from different backgrounds and education, match accurately after much repetition, by chance? No. Do you know what scientists do when they find that their "point of view" isn't producing accurate results? They CHANGE IT. That's the beauty of science. You constantly learn new things and when you find a flaw in what you know about the universe, you change it to match reality as best you can.

Not sure what you were trying to get across in your message, but at the end, what "basic assumptions are only supporting themselves" which I hold? I stated that what we label as "gravity" exists demonstrably, yet it is somehow an assumption?

not even going to respond to that... probably the most nonsensical comment in this thread. I hope you're trolling.

Make myself feel important? I was simply stating why questioning people's beliefs and explain how they are wrong is a GOOD thing. Are you implying you do not think slavery should have been abolished? Slavery is an absolutely despicable act, and I'm personally happy that it is no longer existing in our culture. Instead of actually responding to me productively, you initiate in personal attacks with sarcasm. I'll stop responding to you now.

Where did I say anything about slavery at all? I didn't attack you in any way. All I said is people will believe whatever they want to believe in, you can get mad about it sure. They could very well be wrong... Sure. Doesn't mean everything you believe is right either.

what proportion of atheists are formerly religious people?

both groups of people in this discussion are huge and varied, and your post makes the assumption that, say, all atheists made the decision to be that because they read the bible and decided that god doesn't exist. i mean, you say "religious people" as if they are all carbon copies of each other, acting and living the same lives with the same principles outside of religion - making those kinds of assumptions about either group doesn't get this discussion anywhere, it just leads to the generalizations that fuel political and religious divides everywhere.

mind, i don't mean to disparage atheists or theists at all, there are merits to both ways of thinking. the problem is that these types of discussions almost inevitably fall into the "all religious people are incapable free-thought" and "atheists are all godless, immoral heathens" territory, which nobody here wants, i'd hope.

Edit: also, this is sort of pedantic, but

"And when people stop believing in god, that does not mean they got "smarter". No, not at all. They simply have gained knowledge and have a better understanding regarding the value of skepticism and critical thinking."

is literally what i meant when i said that you implied that becoming an atheist makes someone inherently smarter, maybe my definition of smart is out of date, but i think that someone "gaining knowledge" probably also constitutes them getting smarter. like i said before, not all atheists question theism in the name of science or rationalism.

Ya I was being sarcastic but I hit reply instead of quote by mistake so it was really out of context. It was originally in reply to pine_beetle saying we can't disprove what he believes.

a) The tests conducted by the scientific community really aren't as rigorous as you make them out to be in general. Obtaining an important result gets you quite a bit of fame and funding, while verifying it doesn't usually entail any of that. Many phenomena in biology (for example, results on the effect of parasites on biodiversity) haven't been verified, because repeating an experiment is just as expensive as conducting it for the first time, and, as I said, doesn't hold nearly as much promise in academia. So the peer-review process isn't as perfect as you describe it to begin with. Additionally, there's a lot of peer pressure to conform to existing theories, which of course stifles open opposition against whatever is popular at the time.
b) I can only repeat what I said above. Your basic assumption is that induction (concluding a general principle from a number of observed phenomena) is possible. The only real indication of that principle being true is that it has worked (more or less) before, which in itself is an act of induction.

bill nye is a fag with no academic achievements

I am not sure. Based on religious numbers, a child being raised into a religion (or some type of belief in god) is above 80%, since over 80% of the world is of religious faith. So I'd say a large majority of atheists are formerly religious, based on those numbers.

I never said "all", I said a vast majority. And yes, what is in the bible leads to their de-conversion. It may not be the SOLE reason which persuades them, but I'm sure it's definitely a deciding factor. Along with debating, research, documentaries, learning about other religions, etc... This isn't an assumption, just go talk to a few.

I don't understand how stating "religious people" would automatically imply I am stating they are exactly the same to one another. I know first hand that they are NOT exactly the same, hence the amount of denominations just within ONE religion. I never stated they all have the same beliefs either. I gave examples of different beliefs from all different types of religious people. When I made the skepticism comment, that was a broader point to the idea that "faith" overrules everything. And when it comes down to it, I'd say almost all religions have that in common.

So anyone who gains knowledge in any subject is "inherently smarter"? For the example I used, if I become more knowledgeable about cars, does this mean I'm inherently smarter? I'm not sure why you are focusing on this point.

ok... what do they question theism on?

I'm an atheist myself but I don't think you're doing Searchlight's point justice. His point is the only thing that really makes me question my atheism.

If I understand the point he's raising correctly then he's saying that all beliefs are based on faith. Your counter was that the scientific method is a way to validate our beliefs. The response would be well what justifies the scientific method? One might say that since the scientific method is simply observing what we can and recording/scrutinizing our observations, it's a good way to get at the truth. Well where's the justification for the idea that there even is such a thing as 'truth'? Another way of thinking about it is, what if, all of a sudden, gravity on earth ceased to function. Is this impossible? Even if we had conducted as many observations and experiments as we possibly could, we could still be missing something, right? For examples, while we observe gravity we remain ignorant as to how it actually interacts with matter and energy. Some postulate that is a form of electromagnetic radiation with an extremely long wavelength, but we simply do not know. So is it even that far fetched that we are missing something big, something fundamental? Even if we did everything we possibly could, let's even say we did infinite experiments (hypothetically), wouldn't there always be something we do not know? So can we ever really arrive at a 'truth'? Isn't there a limit to how accurate any model is? The Bohr model of an atom isn't truly accurate, anyone who took an advanced chemistry course in high school can tell you that. In truth, every model of a phenomena other than the occurrence itself leaves SOMETHING out, by definition, because it is not the original phenomena. So don't you need to take everything on faith; if nothing else, faith that truth exists?

It's a weird argument, and hard to counter. In the end, for me, I don't think that at this point in time you can use it as an argument for anything, so it's probably irrelevant. I believe it was Richard Dawkins who called it a "psychological red herring", and I think he was right. However, it could provide some credence to a model of the universe with some supernatural power. Like Marxist was saying, even most atheists look for some purpose or reason in life. Isn't that really nothing more than looking for a pattern? Isn't that what science itself is based off of? In that regard, if you subscribe to this line of thought, wouldn't a higher power seem to make sense, considering the amount of order we observe in the universe?

I'd rather trust in science too, but you can't deny this argument its complexity like that. It is rather compelling.

EDIT: For clarity's sake: what I call "faith" Searchlight called an assumption.

I take shitposting very seriously.
This has clearly passed the point of shitposting.

go to sleep folks, nobody will ever give a shit about your process of thought on the origin of the world/universe when you get into the big bad world of wage slavery.

in order, just going down your post because tediously quoting quoted things would look like a bigger mess than this.

this statistic is hilariously impossible to find, literally saw a site called "infidels.org." it's probably true that most atheists turn over from religion, rather than being born into it, i guess? china is actually the largest irreligious state in the whole word, with like ~80% of their population being atheist or essentially equivalent.

either way i think what you're saying here is a generalization. what i'm saying is that there are internal motivations for becoming atheist, and that while the majority of the time the outward response of those motivations is denying the bible or god or whatever, it's probably always more complex than that for the majority of people. because, you know, people aren't really very simple in their choices like that.

this is a clarification that you didn't do a very good job of making the first time - my point was the way that your post described "religious people" so uniformly causes shitty generalizations that, like i said, make these discussions really stupid. (as evidenced by the last page of this thread!) also, faith isn't really exclusive to religion, every branch of science has to begin with a few assumptions about how the world works, and those assumptions are faith-based. even if that faith is informed by not yet being proven wrong about those assumptions.

the implication in your previous posts was that the mere act of becoming an atheist somehow, like, leveled you up as a human being, giving you more intelligence. my point there is that not every atheist gains knowledge by becoming one, and that someone can question their faith while still remaining religious and gain a separate kind of knowledge. i am also shit at cars, so if this doesn't make sense just say so - but what i'm trying to say is that at that point you described, where the mechanic informs you of the better oil choice, that isn't as obvious as you're making it out to be. it's closer to someone, who isn't necessarily smarter or better at cars than you, offering you a change in oil type, doing the research, informing your decision, and then choosing between the two. this metaphor is kind of stupid though, and it's a lot easier just to talk about it directly.

finally, how someone questions their faith is not my business to know, as i don't deign to have a faith to question. if faith is religion, the opposite of that would be skepticism. it may be a large part of science (just as faith is a large part of religion,) but it isn't the complete picture, so to speak.

Interesting debate one of the few I have ever enjoyed.

Be a good person. Strive to be better. Do no harm. Help each other. Love your friends. Pity your enemies. Enjoy what time you have. Kindness. Always kindness.

These are the motto's I try to live by, and I hope everyone else does too.

One of the problems I have with this thread has nothing to do with the content but the level of scorn directed towards the "other" or minority viewpoint. What might seem scorn deserved, is scorn nonetheless. Fight those who would do harm, but be careful doing harm just because there is a fight.

@pine in #90 (yes I hate using quote functions because in just creates more shit to read).

See philosophically speaking there are essentially two basic approaches. One, the materialist conception of reality, posits that there is absolutely no unknowable truth - truth exists objectively. The way one comes to know the truth is by perceiving it directly or at least having the capability to perceive it directly utilizing the senses - for example I personally have never observed a neutron but I can believe, reasonably, that they exist because of the overwhelming evidence that they do in fact exist and could be observed directly. That's not to say there are things which are unknown - but something being unknown is quite different from something being unknowable.

Alternatively, in an idealistic approach to reality, there are unknowable truths and mystical forces at work in the world - or at least things beyond human perception and are thus unknowable. Which is frankly farcical because you then resign to living purely in your own mind where your perceptions of reality are based on primarily self-admitted illusion as such or are the product of some other being's fancy.

While I personally have absolutely no faith in religions to explain the natural world in any way shape or form, I respect that certain individuals find a degree of solace or pleasure living within its ideological constructs, communities, and illusions and sometimes wish I could do the same. It's not a question of being angry or seeing myself as being superior to someone who regards their senses and minds as being incapable of understanding their surroundings. The fact of the matter is, is that there must be objective truth or we live purely in an illusion - which, based on the fact that reality seems quite real to me and I've never been given a reason to think otherwise (unlike some Cartesians and their affinity for assuming everything is a dream) truth must exist and if it exists it is unknowable.

The reason this debate was so comical is because Nye was easily able to attack Ham on his misuse or outright ignorance of objective truth - which in my earlier postings I said Ham ought to have taken care to avoid at all costs (he did not) which calls into question his entire ideological system.

Do I want to change peoples way of thinking? Yes. That's the entire point of ideology - to change your reality and to understand how and why things/events occur.

I have gone to church since I was a kid, go to a private high school, have bible class, and more and I'll admit I don't believe everything in the bible, I don't believe all the miracle stories, I do not agree with a lot that my pastor says or what my bible teacher teaches me but I do believe however that a God exists and that heaven and hell exists. The reason I still believe though is because I have no reason to stop believing. Yes some things are dis proven but overall the existence of God, heaven, hell, and more has not been dis proven and I have faith in that. Now if someone shows me evidence on how the first organism was created, how we all came from one organism, and why we are just on this earth that was placed in the Goldie Locks zone just perfect for human life then I won't stop believing.

fuck you blood

:[

@Marxist. I find you are using the term truth rather selfishly. Who are you to say there are two basic approaches to reality? Are you some all knowing person with a superior perception of reality than billions of people who commit their lives to a religion? How can someone know the truth by perception? Especially when perception can easily be manipulated? Churches have manipulated peoples perceptions for thousands of years.

It's very easy to oversimplify and misinterpret somebody else's beliefs. I agree with you on ideology, the question is what is life? Why did it happen? Did life just happen randomly or is there more to it than we know? Can you tell someone how life began? Can you take raw elements and create a living organism? Even if you could the likely hood of that happening on it's own is so low could it not justify a persons belief there was a creator?

As far as the Bill Nye thing goes... I didn't watch any of it. The religion debate has been going on for thousands of years. We really don't need more of it.

by the sounds of it pine, you should watch it. It shows how Ken only had one argument to every question "well the bible says so" while Bill spent his time using real science.

<grass[ILoveYouEva]> thats not fair
<grass[ILoveYouEva]> obviously creationists are going to be less likely to know how to get on the internet

When Ken Ham wakes up in the morning and the ground is wet does he think it rained or does he think someone ran around in the middle of the night and sprayed a garden hose on everything?