edgarblythe
 
  3  
Tue 16 Nov, 2010 08:17 am
Proving the negative is one of the more asinine arguments the religious want to foist on us. If I went to one of them and said that a gigantic, invisible, block of granite had been suspended over their head and that their unbelief in that assertion might result in the block coming down to crush them, they would summarily dismiss every word I said about it - with no evidence needed to prove me wrong. Yet they can make up crap - borrow it, actually - and demand that I offer up proof before rejecting said crap. The ball is in their court re evidence. As soon as I see even one tiny speck of it I will start to modify my position. In the meantime, I am one of those that contends that gods have never existed, outside of the imagination and I don't have to prove it.
spendius
 
  2  
Tue 16 Nov, 2010 08:51 am
@edgarblythe,
Of course you don't have to ed. You couldn't anyway.

But do you think you would be living as you do if everybody agreed with your contention and had always done so. Where would atheists have started the Western cultural project from?

Human beings have had 2, some say 4, million years to get the science of dynamic space up and running. Are you saying that it was mere coincidence that such a dramatic event took place in the Christian cultural setting?

How do you know anybody in it believed in God rather than acting as if they did.

If by an invisible block of granite you mean it's in the dark and I can't see it I would probably have a glance upwards even if I had already discovered what a chump you are. If you mean the block is unseeable I would pat you on the noddle. As I would also if my doing so was said to be going to cause it to fall. That's voodoo.

I could believe you for as long as it took me to take a few paces to one side and then switch to not believing you just to see if my unbelief could re-direct the unseeable granite block to my new position or have it follow me around.

Meanwhile--the church bells are ringing to call decent folk to their praying and singing--and to their endogamous courtship rituals, piss-ups, employment opportunities and real-estate stitch-ups.
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Tue 16 Nov, 2010 10:51 am
@spendius,
From Greece.
spendius
 
  1  
Tue 16 Nov, 2010 11:41 am
@cicerone imposter,
Not a chance. But we might return there and leave the cold, dark extremes to the beasts and plants. It won't be soon.

We've actually done the business. Science is now coming to be a cultural drag. How can it evolve when it's rigid? x=(f)y has only a limited application however many careers are built on it.
0 Replies
 
hingehead
 
  1  
Tue 16 Nov, 2010 01:36 pm
@edgarblythe,
May the Flying Spaghettie Monster touch you with his noodly appendage.
edgarblythe
 
  0  
Tue 16 Nov, 2010 01:41 pm
@hingehead,
May you be blessed with meatballs and sauce.
0 Replies
 
eurocelticyankee
 
  1  
Tue 16 Nov, 2010 02:35 pm
@spendius,
Science progressed despite Christianity, certainly not because of it.
hingehead
 
  0  
Tue 16 Nov, 2010 04:01 pm
@eurocelticyankee,
http://www.absurdintellectual.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/DarkAges.gif

About obvious concerns about the scales of this graph and what it's saying (and its apparent exclusion of the Muslim contribution to science and maths) Grant Smith, in this blog post's, comments says:

Quote:
The author of the rant addresses some of your concerns:

Quote:
Note about the graph: No doubt some will argue about the starting and ending dates of the various periods and yes, the Eqyptian, Greek and Roman periods overlap, but the intent of the graph aims to show an approximate relationship through time. The scale of scientific advancements show no numbers because we have no numbers to go by. The graph shows a relative scale of scientific advancement compared to other periods. Historians, for example, would agree that the Romans in the first few centuries CE had more knowlege about nature (science) than the Greeks of 400 BCE, and that the Age of Enlightenment built on the scientifc discoveries made during the Renaissance. Feel free to adjust the scale to your liking, but regarless of how you adjust the graph, it will do little to change the fact that scientific knowlenge (or the loss of it) fell dramatically during the Christian Dark Ages.


I agree that the graph is fuzzy, but as a general conversation-sparker, it gets the point across.
Ionus
 
  -1  
Tue 16 Nov, 2010 04:13 pm
@edgarblythe,
Quote:
and demand that I offer up proof before rejecting said crap.
Squeel all you want, it is impossible to prove a negative...I know you dont like it, but thats life.
Quote:
As soon as I see even one tiny speck of it I will start to modify my position.
See, you ARE agnostic.
Quote:
I am one of those that contends that gods have never existed, outside of the imagination and I don't have to prove it.
Exactly the negative of religion. You are religious, you are just turned around 180 deg.
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  -3  
Tue 16 Nov, 2010 04:21 pm
@hingehead,
Pathetic. Central governments collapsed and you blame religion ? Do you do you best study with kids playing around you because science had a hell of a time with barbarians kicking over the ink well.

I dont suppose you like facts ? Like the monasteries kept alive knowledge from previous times, and improved on other technologies ? What you mean to say is the hole left by cowardly scientists running away from barbarians.

Calling it the Christian Dark Ages is a pathetic attempt to associate a causative link where none exists.
georgeob1
 
  0  
Tue 16 Nov, 2010 04:26 pm
@Ionus,
Well said !
0 Replies
 
eurocelticyankee
 
  2  
Tue 16 Nov, 2010 04:55 pm
@Ionus,
The ramblings of a zealot.
eurocelticyankee
 
  1  
Tue 16 Nov, 2010 05:02 pm
@Ionus,
Quote:
At least religion gives people a reason to be good citizens, evolution says rape and murder are OK because only your genes matter.


Zealot.
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Tue 16 Nov, 2010 05:09 pm
@eurocelticyankee,
eurocelticyankee wrote:

Quote:
At least religion gives people a reason to be good citizens, evolution says rape and murder are OK because only your genes matter.


Zealot.

I have this troll on ignore. I wish people would not quote him/her.
eurocelticyankee
 
  1  
Tue 16 Nov, 2010 05:11 pm
@edgarblythe,
Agreed.
0 Replies
 
hingehead
 
  2  
Tue 16 Nov, 2010 05:17 pm
@edgarblythe,
Although it is a handy reminder why you've ignored him.
eurocelticyankee
 
  2  
Tue 16 Nov, 2010 05:22 pm
@hingehead,
Have you come across this monster, NAACP.

Steer Clear.
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Tue 16 Nov, 2010 05:23 pm
@hingehead,
Onto each ass an occasional dingleberry must cling, I suppose.
hingehead
 
  3  
Tue 16 Nov, 2010 05:24 pm
@eurocelticyankee,
Ignored him after about five posts - a new record.
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Tue 16 Nov, 2010 05:24 pm
@eurocelticyankee,
Yessir. Another train wreck.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

The tolerant atheist - Discussion by Tuna
Another day when there is no God - Discussion by edgarblythe
church of atheism - Discussion by daredevil
Can An Atheist Have A Soul? - Discussion by spiritual anrkst
THE MAGIC BUS COMES TO CANADA - Discussion by Setanta
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Atheism
  3. » Page 138
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.14 seconds on 11/15/2024 at 05:19:42