Atheism and Agnosticism discrimination thread

[Ispravlennaja Tsekovija]

We do not know what caused the big bang, scientists are currently trying to look into it. They are also looking into the why the laws are the way they are.

are they? because ultimate explanations for the origin of those two things seem pretty hard to come up with, even hypothetically. you inherently have to stray into the realm of philosophy.

...You did not convince me of everything. I never said that atheism had anything to do with science. I said that religion and science are in contradiction because the very basis of the two things are mutually exclusive and I still hold to that.

you and your own posts are "in contradiction"

[Neanderthaland]

what caused the big bang. why are the laws of the physics so. etc.

Using the fact that we don't know the origin of the universe to make an argument as to what the origin of the universe must be is fundamentally silly.

It's saying, "we don't know, therefore we know."

Ultimately the answer will turn out to be whatever it turns out to be. And everyone's philosophical musings about it will prove to have been of exactly zero value.

[Ispravlennaja Tsekovija]

what caused the big bang. why are the laws of the physics so. etc.

Using the fact that we don't know the origin of the universe to make an argument as to what the origin of the universe must be is fundamentally silly.

that's not the argument, though. sooo

[Neutraligon]

We do not know what caused the big bang, scientists are currently trying to look into it. They are also looking into the why the laws are the way they are.

are they? because ultimate explanations for the origin of those two things seem pretty hard to come up with, even hypothetically. you inherently have to stray into the realm of philosophy.

...You did not convince me of everything. I never said that atheism had anything to do with science. I said that religion and science are in contradiction because the very basis of the two things are mutually exclusive and I still hold to that.

you and your own posts are "in contradiction"

Yes, they are.
No they are not. Atheism is the answer to a single question, do you have a god belief. In the end it has nothing to do with science. A person could be an atheist for the simple reason of never having heard of a god. THey could believe in all sorts of stuff, from ghosts to magic.

The comment was specifically on science and religion, where science and religion are in contradiction to each other because the core of what is science and the core of what is religion are opposing to each other.

[Neanderthaland]

Using the fact that we don't know the origin of the universe to make an argument as to what the origin of the universe must be is fundamentally silly.

that's not the argument, though. sooo

It is, just in a convoluted way. Theological arguments regarding the origin of the universe reduce to arguments from ignorance.

[Ispravlennaja Tsekovija]

that's not the argument, though. sooo

It is, just in a convoluted way. Theological arguments regarding the origin of the universe reduce to arguments from ignorance.

the second you use the name of a logical fallacy you have lost the argument

[Ispravlennaja Tsekovija]

are they? because ultimate explanations for the origin of those two things seem pretty hard to come up with, even hypothetically. you inherently have to stray into the realm of philosophy.

you and your own posts are "in contradiction"

Yes, they are.

source? source?? do you have a source??? source do you have source?? source.

No they are not. Atheism is the answer to a single question, do you have a god belief. In the end it has nothing to do with science. A person could be an atheist for the simple reason of never having heard of a god. THey could believe in all sorts of stuff, from ghosts to magic.

what the fuck are you talking about? what does this have to do with literally anything

The comment was specifically on science and religion, where science and religion are in contradiction to each other because the core of what is science and the core of what is religion are opposing to each other.

science relates to observable natural phenomena. religion relates to unobservable supernatural phenomena. the venn diagram of those two things looks like a pair of glasses.

[Neanderthaland]

It is, just in a convoluted way. Theological arguments regarding the origin of the universe reduce to arguments from ignorance.

the second you use the name of a logical fallacy you have lost the argument

Whoever told you that is stupid. And repeating it is stupid. We'll call this the argumentum ad dumbass.

[Ispravlennaja Tsekovija]

the second you use the name of a logical fallacy you have lost the argument

Whoever told you that is stupid. And repeating it is stupid. We'll call this the argumentum ad dumbass.

please stop reading rationalwiki for Two weeks i promise you will be shocked at how much your life improves

[Neanderthaland]

Whoever told you that is stupid. And repeating it is stupid. We'll call this the argumentum ad dumbass.

please stop reading rationalwiki for Two weeks i promise you will be shocked at how much your life improves

I've never been to rationalwiki in my life. I just read books sometimes.

Now if you were smart, you'd have realized I was just repeating myself when I said "we don't know, therefore we know." That's what an argument from ignorance is. They mean the same thing.

[Neutraligon]

Yes, they are.

source? source?? do you have a source??? source do you have source?? source.

No they are not. Atheism is the answer to a single question, do you have a god belief. In the end it has nothing to do with science. A person could be an atheist for the simple reason of never having heard of a god. THey could believe in all sorts of stuff, from ghosts to magic.

what the fuck are you talking about? what does this have to do with literally anything

The comment was specifically on science and religion, where science and religion are in contradiction to each other because the core of what is science and the core of what is religion are opposing to each other.

science relates to observable natural phenomena. religion relates to unobservable supernatural phenomena. the venn diagram of those two things looks like a pair of glasses.

I mean...there is an entire field of scientists looking into the big bang . https://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/f ... e-big-bang for one. This is kinda a well-known thing.

You seem to be mixing up my argument and I am trying to make it clear. atheism answers one question, and that question has next to nothing to do with science. As to the venn-diagram sure it would look like that...because they are in direct contradiction to each other.

[Ispravlennaja Tsekovija]

Now if you were smart, you'd have realized I was just repeating myself when I said "we don't know, therefore we know." That's what an argument from ignorance is. They mean the same thing.

while it's true that i'm not smart, i'm pretty sure you ought to know from the amount of reporting you've done that that's not an appropriate thing to say on here!

i'm aware what argument from ignorance means. i have a sordid history with learning logical fallacies myself. i just don't care because your point is lame and too weak to be worth addressing.

[Enzonar]

Yes, they are.

source? source?? do you have a source??? source do you have source?? source.

No they are not. Atheism is the answer to a single question, do you have a god belief. In the end it has nothing to do with science. A person could be an atheist for the simple reason of never having heard of a god. THey could believe in all sorts of stuff, from ghosts to magic.

what the fuck are you talking about? what does this have to do with literally anything

The comment was specifically on science and religion, where science and religion are in contradiction to each other because the core of what is science and the core of what is religion are opposing to each other.

science relates to observable natural phenomena. religion relates to unobservable supernatural phenomena. the venn diagram of those two things looks like a pair of glasses.

Checking back on the thread I started but not contributed

Science and religion both seek to explain the universe in their own way. In a sense, religion and science could make sense together, such as the big bang is when god said "let there be light", creating every single quantum particle from nothing. Science can't explain this phenomenon in a sensible way.
I saw on an article that Atheism and Religion's definitions are also pretty screwed. Apparently, some believe that being an atheist means you do not believe in God, others think that you think the world was not created using any other religion's ideologies.
Theoretically, we could be living on a flat earth. If that is the belief of someone, they can either explain a valid argument for something (eg the earth is spinning really fast, causing artificial gravity) or they can explain it using a completely illogical standard. Religion is the same ideology. If a person listens to a voice in their head, and the voice makes them very successful and rich, then if they tell others to listen to the voice in their head, it is logical since it gave that guy wealth. Science is a religion. Christianity is a religion. Pretty much everything is a religion if you think about it. An example is physics. It sparks a theory for how the universe began and functions, but you can't prove it. It's just a theory, like the Bible, the Korah and other religious texts. The only way you can not be religious is if you are an agnosticist, a person apathetic and uncaring to how the universe began or functions. Religions are made by people who are either very powerful, smart or lucky, attracting people to follow them. Einstein is smart, Jesus is lucky, Mohammed is lucky and so on. It doesn't matter how you view it, religion pretty much applies to any belief or theory that can't and won't be proven.

[Neutraligon]

Now if you were smart, you'd have realized I was just repeating myself when I said "we don't know, therefore we know." That's what an argument from ignorance is. They mean the same thing.

while it's true that i'm not smart, i'm pretty sure you ought to know from the amount of reporting you've done that that's not an appropriate thing to say on here!

i'm aware what argument from ignorance means. i have a sordid history with learning logical fallacies myself. i just don't care because your point is lame and too weak to be worth addressing.

Except that it is not a weak or lame argument. It speaks to my point as to why religion and science is in contradiction. Science would say we do not know, let us find out. Until they get evidence, they will not say what is the cause. Religion says we do not know therefore god/gods/some supernatural force.

[Neanderthaland]

Now if you were smart, you'd have realized I was just repeating myself when I said "we don't know, therefore we know." That's what an argument from ignorance is. They mean the same thing.

while it's true that i'm not smart, i'm pretty sure you ought to know from the amount of reporting you've done that that's not an appropriate thing to say on here!

i'm aware what argument from ignorance means. i have a sordid history with learning logical fallacies myself. i just don't care because your point is lame and too weak to be worth addressing.

It's clear you're not here to have any kind of actual discussion. And it's boring. Go back to 4chan.

[Neutraligon]

source? source?? do you have a source??? source do you have source?? source.

what the fuck are you talking about? what does this have to do with literally anything

science relates to observable natural phenomena. religion relates to unobservable supernatural phenomena. the venn diagram of those two things looks like a pair of glasses.

Checking back on the thread I started but not contributed

Science and religion both seek to explain the universe in their own way. In a sense, religion and science could make sense together, such as the big bang is when god said "let there be light", creating every single quantum particle from nothing. Science can't explain this phenomenon in a sensible way.
I saw on an article that Atheism and Religion's definitions are also pretty screwed. Apparently, some believe that being an atheist means you do not believe in God, others think that you think the world was not created using any other religion's ideologies.
Theoretically, we could be living on a flat earth. If that is the belief of someone, they can either explain a valid argument for something (eg the earth is spinning really fast, causing artificial gravity) or they can explain it using a completely illogical standard. Religion is the same ideology. If a person listens to a voice in their head, and the voice makes them very successful and rich, then if they tell others to listen to the voice in their head, it is logical since it gave that guy wealth. Science is a religion. Christianity is a religion. Pretty much everything is a religion if you think about it. An example is physics. It sparks a theory for how the universe began and functions, but you can't prove it. It's just a theory, like the Bible, the Korah and other religious texts. The only way you can not be religious is if you are an agnosticist, a person apathetic and uncaring to how the universe began or functions. Religions are made by people who are either very powerful, smart or lucky, attracting people to follow them. Einstein is smart, Jesus is lucky, Mohammed is lucky and so on. It doesn't matter how you view it, religion pretty much applies to any belief or theory that can't and won't be proven.

This is...nonsensical.

[Ispravlennaja Tsekovija]

source? source?? do you have a source??? source do you have source?? source.

what the fuck are you talking about? what does this have to do with literally anything

science relates to observable natural phenomena. religion relates to unobservable supernatural phenomena. the venn diagram of those two things looks like a pair of glasses.

I mean...there is an entire field of scientists looking into the big bang . https://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/f ... e-big-bang for one. This is kinda a well-known thing.

why and how are two different things. do you know the distinction between proximate and ultimate causation? because it really really does not seem like it. if you need me to explain it to you i can, it's literally something i teach.

You seem to be mixing up my argument and I am trying to make it clear. atheism answers one question, and that question has next to nothing to do with science.

stop talking about this!!! stop. talking. about. this. i brought up an example of why people like you believe the garbage that you're spewing right now and you've somehow latched onto the technical specifics of the example. i just do not care what meandering nonsense you have to say about it, it's completely unrelated!

As to the venn-diagram sure it would look like that...because they are in direct contradiction to each other.

what the fuck do you think "contradiction" means? because the definition you seem to be using sure isn't familiar to me.

[Ispravlennaja Tsekovija]

while it's true that i'm not smart, i'm pretty sure you ought to know from the amount of reporting you've done that that's not an appropriate thing to say on here!

i'm aware what argument from ignorance means. i have a sordid history with learning logical fallacies myself. i just don't care because your point is lame and too weak to be worth addressing.

It's clear you're not here to have any kind of actual discussion. And it's boring. Go back to 4chan.

i'm perfectly willing to have an actual discussion. i'm not willing to engage with someone who's yelling latin phrases at me for committing thought crimes

Checking back on the thread I started but not contributed

Science and religion both seek to explain the universe in their own way. In a sense, religion and science could make sense together, such as the big bang is when god said "let there be light", creating every single quantum particle from nothing. Science can't explain this phenomenon in a sensible way.
I saw on an article that Atheism and Religion's definitions are also pretty screwed. Apparently, some believe that being an atheist means you do not believe in God, others think that you think the world was not created using any other religion's ideologies.
Theoretically, we could be living on a flat earth. If that is the belief of someone, they can either explain a valid argument for something (eg the earth is spinning really fast, causing artificial gravity) or they can explain it using a completely illogical standard. Religion is the same ideology. If a person listens to a voice in their head, and the voice makes them very successful and rich, then if they tell others to listen to the voice in their head, it is logical since it gave that guy wealth. Science is a religion. Christianity is a religion. Pretty much everything is a religion if you think about it. An example is physics. It sparks a theory for how the universe began and functions, but you can't prove it. It's just a theory, like the Bible, the Korah and other religious texts. The only way you can not be religious is if you are an agnosticist, a person apathetic and uncaring to how the universe began or functions. Religions are made by people who are either very powerful, smart or lucky, attracting people to follow them. Einstein is smart, Jesus is lucky, Mohammed is lucky and so on. It doesn't matter how you view it, religion pretty much applies to any belief or theory that can't and won't be proven.

This is...nonsensical.

wow, you're one to talk!

[Neutraligon]

I mean...there is an entire field of scientists looking into the big bang . https://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/f ... e-big-bang for one. This is kinda a well-known thing.

why and how are two different things. do you know the distinction between proximate and ultimate causation? because it really really does not seem like it. if you need me to explain it to you i can, it's literally something i teach.

You seem to be mixing up my argument and I am trying to make it clear. atheism answers one question, and that question has next to nothing to do with science.

stop talking about this!!! stop. talking. about. this. i brought up an example of why people like you believe the garbage that you're spewing right now and you've somehow latched onto the technical specifics of the example. i just do not care what meandering nonsense you have to say about it, it's completely unrelated!

As to the venn-diagram sure it would look like that...because they are in direct contradiction to each other.

what the fuck do you think "contradiction" means? because the definition you seem to be using sure isn't familiar to me.

I understand the difference.
It is very much related
contradiction- a combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another.

Science and religion are opposed to each other because in the end religion is based on faith, and science exists to remove faith from the process of figuring out how reality works. Faith is belief without evidence.

[Neanderthaland]

It's clear you're not here to have any kind of actual discussion. And it's boring. Go back to 4chan.

i'm perfectly willing to have an actual discussion. i'm not willing to engage with someone who's yelling latin phrases at me for committing thought crimes

"Argument from ignorance" are English words.

[Ispravlennaja Tsekovija]

why and how are two different things. do you know the distinction between proximate and ultimate causation? because it really really does not seem like it. if you need me to explain it to you i can, it's literally something i teach.

stop talking about this!!! stop. talking. about. this. i brought up an example of why people like you believe the garbage that you're spewing right now and you've somehow latched onto the technical specifics of the example. i just do not care what meandering nonsense you have to say about it, it's completely unrelated!

what the fuck do you think "contradiction" means? because the definition you seem to be using sure isn't familiar to me.

I understand the difference.
It is very much related
contradiction- a combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another.

Science and religion are opposed to each other because in the end religion is based on faith, and science exists to remove faith from the process of figuring out how reality works. Faith is belief without evidence.

wow. wow. i am beyond words. there is no point in talking to you. in one ear and out the other. i'm done with this.

i'm perfectly willing to have an actual discussion. i'm not willing to engage with someone who's yelling latin phrases at me for committing thought crimes

"Argument from ignorance" are English words.

you also did argumentum ad dumbass which is latin. the point is the same regardless of the accuracy of your pedantry though

[Neutraligon]

I understand the difference.
It is very much related
contradiction- a combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another.

Science and religion are opposed to each other because in the end religion is based on faith, and science exists to remove faith from the process of figuring out how reality works. Faith is belief without evidence.

wow. wow. i am beyond words. there is no point in talking to you. in one ear and out the other. i'm done with this.

"Argument from ignorance" are English words.

you also did argumentum ad dumbass which is latin. the point is the same regardless of the accuracy of your pedantry though

Wow you need to calm down. I answered your post. I made a point, that being science and religion are in contradiction due to the fundamentals of what each are. You have yet to argue against this.

[Neanderthaland]

I understand the difference.
It is very much related
contradiction- a combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another.

Science and religion are opposed to each other because in the end religion is based on faith, and science exists to remove faith from the process of figuring out how reality works. Faith is belief without evidence.

wow. wow. i am beyond words. there is no point in talking to you. in one ear and out the other. i'm done with this.

"Argument from ignorance" are English words.

you also did argumentum ad dumbass which is latin. the point is the same regardless of the accuracy of your pedantry though

No, that's not real Latin. That's a joke. And pointing to it is far more pedantic then whatever I did.

But this is boring. How about instead of just endlessly complaining that I'm not using words you like, you try actually dealing with an argument.

[Neutraligon]

wow. wow. i am beyond words. there is no point in talking to you. in one ear and out the other. i'm done with this.

you also did argumentum ad dumbass which is latin. the point is the same regardless of the accuracy of your pedantry though

No, that's not real Latin. That's a joke. And pointing to it is far more pedantic then whatever I did.

But this is boring. How about instead of just endlessly complaining that I'm not using words you like, you try actually dealing with an argument.

Would you agree that science and religion are fundamentally in opposition to each other? Not their conclusions, but the basis upon which they rest?

[Neanderthaland]

No, that's not real Latin. That's a joke. And pointing to it is far more pedantic then whatever I did.

But this is boring. How about instead of just endlessly complaining that I'm not using words you like, you try actually dealing with an argument.

Would you agree that science and religion are fundamentally in opposition to each other? Not their conclusions, but the basis upon which they rest?

Yes.

That's not to say that they can't coexist within the same person. But they're fundamentally doing different things.