Checkmate atheists

1329066930.jpg
 
I spent a mildly large amount of time making sure that was sound, I would be interested in you disproving any of it
 
Its not about refuting points its called look up the definition of a scientific theory.

Evolution happened. That is a fact. The only gray areas are in individual animals and how they evolved. Just because we don't know every stage of the evolutionary timeline for some piss ant animal doest mean evolution falls on its head.

Also if you refute evolution on the original premise, despite how stupid that is, and you believe in creationism you are a hypocrite, and a joke.

 
well I got owned... :3

srsly though I am on your side.. I was mentioning this because I think it empowers science and helps to explain how reasonable it is. I think people take away from the power of science when they misinterpret what it is saying
 
i like atheism. i do not like people that construct their identity around atheism and spend their time insulting and blaming everything on religious people at every opportunity.
 
i think what puns was trying to say is that nothing can be proven, only disproven, all scientists agree on this. no matter how many times you test something and get a positive result the next test could yield a negative result and disprove your theory. your physics teacher, if he's ever read a single physics book, which i'm sure he has, will not dispute this. theory, no matter how many people agree on it, or how many "pretty much consider it fact," is still just theory. there are places in the universe where even our "laws" don't apply. there's a reason we separate quantum physics from basic physics, because they tend to not agree with each other, even though they are both generally accepted as being correct, by generally the same people.
 
This is not "shit," these are very important and deep questions. There is nothing wrong with a respectful debate between Atheists and Deists.
 
I agree with this except for the statements "there are places in the universe where even our laws don't apply" and "just a theory". There are no known places in the universe where the laws of physics don't apply. Also "just a theory" is a very misleading statement; it implies that theories are very loose ideas that just might be true. This is not correct, for something to be accepted as a theory it must be tested TONS of times. It could be disproven at any time (which is why puns said that science doesn't claim anything to be absolutely true) but you should never say "just a theory".
 
The laws of physics do apply within black holes, but they might be a different set of laws. Scientists don't know whether or not the laws change in a black hole due to the fact that all information that enters black holes is destroyed. This is similar to how newton's laws break down on the sub atomic level, at which point the laws of quantum physics begin to apply.
 
yes scientists argue about this but only because they had to invent a whole new set of laws just for singularities, none of which are agreed on (thorne-hawking-preskill bet). the laws of quantum physics, the laws of black holes, the laws of physics (as we knew them before quantum and singularities) all disagree with each other, that's what i meant. 2/3 of those laws are theories by single physicists that 2/3 of the other physicists refuse to believe. the idea that information is lost within black holes itself divided the entire physics community. sorry for not believing the same theories as you.
 
Side note(ish): Some scientists are attempting to connect all of these laws. I'm very curious as to how they would do that.
 
All the black holes sucked up the other blackholes until there was one left and it exploded and created god. Right?
 
but believing in creationism doesn't designate someone as a non-believer of evolution. evolution explains origins of animals/people but not our planet/solar system.
 
Exactly what I was trying to say. I'm a biology major and have no doubt that evolution is correct, but it is still only a theory and can easily be disproven if evidence is found that indicates something else is responsible for the diversity of life. That evidence hasn't been found and probably does't exist. I think that a lot of people don't understand that the goal of science isn't to push some idea as indisputable truth but to find the best explanation for natural processes. I've talked to creationists who are convinced that scientists are biased towards evolution and ignore other explanations and evidence. My response is first that once you start seriously studying biology you learn there is a huge amount of evidence supporting evolution, far more than what you hear in the news or learn in high school science classes. Then I point out that the only arguments I have ever heard creationists use is to point out a gap in the evidence we have to support evolution and then twist it in anyway that they can to fit in with their religion. And the scientists are the biased group?
 
Again, very misleading statement. Theories are incredibly well tested. Just because it might be disproven at any time, doesn't mean it's any less true.
 
This this this. I don't see how anybody can deny evolution, and it in no way goes against God unless you're one of the 5 people on earth that takes the bible literally in its entirety
 
just putting in my 2 cents. Funny video but I honestly don't understand why people care about other peoples beliefs. Atheist or Religious, believe in what you personally believe and give zero fucks about what other people think and live your life. No point in arguing, it will never end anyway
 
For future thought, it is very ignorant to try and discuss something you have no idea what your talking about. Referring to your bottom comment.
 
this is the awkward part where I inform you that your sarcasm meter is broken... awkwarddddddd

aha but I feel ya' we are on the same page, I just didn't think your response was the 'shitting all over my face' you thought it was going to be
 
no.... i said I like religion for morals and ethics.

Where in my statement did I say non religious people don't have morals or ethics?
 
heres my statement too clarify. where in this statement did I even mention atheists?

"I like religion for the morals it preaches. basically my religion tells me to be a good person. It also tells me some old guy jumped on a boat with 120000 animals and the entire world was covered in water for 40 days. Do i believe this? of course not, but i do believe that you should love your neighbor as yourself. unfortunately most people overlook the most important parts of religion. even islam can be seen as a beautiful religion, the only problem is they're not allowed to masturbate.... now can you blame them for blowing shit up? you'de be pissed too... the extremists will always ruin it but just a little religion combined with science makes a healthy mix."
 
so then can you admit that a person without religion is equally capable of being a good person and possessing good morals?
 
yea buddy. I have pleny of friends who are atheists and are good people.

I will have to say one thing though. some of my friends who are atheists claim they don't believe in a higher being, but they sure as hell love to bash religion more than anyone I've ever met. It almost seems as if their religion is to try and poke fun of all religions

Now I understand there are examples in every religion of absurdity, and I don't discount this from atheism as well, theres plenty of insane atheists too.
 
my point is there are plenty of religious people who are good people and aren't annoying or absurd. that was my point.

where do atheists get their morals ?
 
you're proving my atheist point by the way. What are you trying to prove?

take a chill pill man. I just wanted to state my point and ask what atheists believe / live by and you're getting all defensive.
 
logical morals, as in dont kill and stuff. i was just wondering if you knew that the catholics claimed that it, and they called it natural law. idk why im just really bored and was wondering if you knew that.
 
He wasn't being defensive he was just trying to clarify to me what roddy meant by his question. Also nothing about his statement implied he was overly excited so there is no need for chill pills.
 
no, i'm not actually. if he does say it was the commandments that were responsible for creating the guidelines for people to live by, then i would have to say that philosophers like socrates had long been philosophizing what 'good' is and how people come to define what 'good' is long before the commandments came along.

there are reasons that people get defensive. such as when they encounter opinions void of critical thought.
 
And yes I know that catholics claimed that, but that doesn't mean that being religious is the only way to form morals. As children, people form their morals though their interactions with other people as they grow up.
 
I think he was just so proud that he thought of a good argument that he decided to use it even though it didn't apply.
 
are the natural laws still not rules to live by created within a religious context, like the commandments?

i don't see the difference. my point still applies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top