43
   

Are atheists being more illogical than agnostics?

 
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Thu 12 Dec, 2013 10:54 am
@Germlat,
As I said, I don't view intellect as a deciding factor for believers. As for original minds, Einstein didn't pick his discoveries out of thin air. He gave a great deal of credit to others.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Thu 12 Dec, 2013 11:09 am
@edgarblythe,
I normally tend to agree with a lot of your thinking but you wrong on this one Edgar...in fact a great deal of Genius tends to see patterns of all sorts the ones that exist and the ones that don't, they just try more till they nail the working ones, they obsess about it...John Nash comes to mind.
Germlat
 
  1  
Thu 12 Dec, 2013 11:21 am
@edgarblythe,
I don't discredit that most discoveries are the result of much collaboration. I agree intellect is not the deciding factor for believers...but for some there is an internal philosophical examination that precedes that decision so I believe some thought is involved.
0 Replies
 
Germlat
 
  1  
Thu 12 Dec, 2013 11:39 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
I agree. The genius uses any available source to support his endeavor but ultimately he /she connects the dots
0 Replies
 
Germlat
 
  1  
Thu 12 Dec, 2013 01:09 pm
@Romeo Fabulini,
Hilarious actually.. I do appreciate humor.
0 Replies
 
carnaticmystery
 
  0  
Fri 13 Dec, 2013 01:42 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Quote:
Your are beyond idiotic and that is why I chose to not address you !

you addressed me again, dumbfuck.
Quote:
WTF has the uncertainty principle have to do with the possible geometry on quantized space ???

a lot.
Quote:
Where did you took that moronic idea from ?

my intelligent brain.
Quote:
Whether you can know or not know the velocity or position of a particle says nothing on the number of possible states of a particle. It only says you cannot be sure at any moment what is the state.

it means you can never locate a particle certainly. if you know its location more accurately, you lose its velocity. if you know its velocity, you lose its location.

and you think this 'says nothing on the possible states of the particle'. IT HAS A LOT TO DO WITH IT. if we can NEVER be sure where a particle is for certain, nor of its exact velocity, then it is CERTAIN that there are infinite possible locations/velocities/gradations possible on any scale.

this concept goes way beyond your idiotic assuming mind, simply saying that 'oh well, we don't know the exact location or velocity, but who cares, lets just assume it definitely exists, it is there, it has finite possible states.'

that isn't science, it is blind faith.
Quote:
On the same account I may not know that Washington is the capital of USA but the fact that I don't know wont make Washington disappear.

the entire universe, including washington, is made of atoms. each and every particle is PROVEN by science to be 'uncertain' of its existence. you are too idiotic to understand the meaning of this.

you are simply saying, but i see washington, so washington exists. even if i don't know about it, it still exists.

you don't actually KNOW this, you believe it. because 99.99% of humanity also believes it. so what? the entire existence is a belief only.

Quote:
You are prolly the most stupid ignorant obnoxious troll ever walked A2K i've come across so far, I mean is just beyond belief... can't you really tell just how dumb your remarks look, has no one closer to you told you yet ?

haha, anybody who i let close to me is intelligent enough to understand what i am saying. you can keep struggling to understand basic scientific principles, when you do, we can consider getting close.

Quote:
You are a mesh of nonsense, an endless soup of confusion. Now get the **** out of my sight you pathetic clown, I have far better things to do then listen to your **** !

everything i have said makes perfect sense, and there is no confusion. i am not in your sight to get the **** out of, and you obviously have NOTHING better to do because you keep responding. why? because you consider yourself a scientist, and i am challenging the very science you claim to know better than me. but you don't, dumbfuck. basic physics goes beyond you.
JimmyJ
 
  1  
Mon 16 Dec, 2013 04:23 am
@igm,
Do you believe it's possible for santa to also be real?
igm
 
  1  
Mon 16 Dec, 2013 07:38 am
@JimmyJ,
JimmyJ wrote:

Do you believe it's possible for santa to also be real?

Define santa and I'll tell you... i.e. what are the defining characteristics of the object... santa... in your opinion?
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Mon 16 Dec, 2013 07:43 am
@carnaticmystery,
carnaticmystery wrote:

Quote:
Your are beyond idiotic and that is why I chose to not address you !

you addressed me again, dumbfuck.
Quote:
WTF has the uncertainty principle have to do with the possible geometry on quantized space ???

a lot.
Quote:
Where did you took that moronic idea from ?

my intelligent brain.
Quote:
Whether you can know or not know the velocity or position of a particle says nothing on the number of possible states of a particle. It only says you cannot be sure at any moment what is the state.

it means you can never locate a particle certainly. if you know its location more accurately, you lose its velocity. if you know its velocity, you lose its location.

and you think this 'says nothing on the possible states of the particle'. IT HAS A LOT TO DO WITH IT. if we can NEVER be sure where a particle is for certain, nor of its exact velocity, then it is CERTAIN that there are infinite possible locations/velocities/gradations possible on any scale.

this concept goes way beyond your idiotic assuming mind, simply saying that 'oh well, we don't know the exact location or velocity, but who cares, lets just assume it definitely exists, it is there, it has finite possible states.'

that isn't science, it is blind faith.
Quote:
On the same account I may not know that Washington is the capital of USA but the fact that I don't know wont make Washington disappear.

the entire universe, including washington, is made of atoms. each and every particle is PROVEN by science to be 'uncertain' of its existence. you are too idiotic to understand the meaning of this.

you are simply saying, but i see washington, so washington exists. even if i don't know about it, it still exists.

you don't actually KNOW this, you believe it. because 99.99% of humanity also believes it. so what? the entire existence is a belief only.

Quote:
You are prolly the most stupid ignorant obnoxious troll ever walked A2K i've come across so far, I mean is just beyond belief... can't you really tell just how dumb your remarks look, has no one closer to you told you yet ?

haha, anybody who i let close to me is intelligent enough to understand what i am saying. you can keep struggling to understand basic scientific principles, when you do, we can consider getting close.

Quote:
You are a mesh of nonsense, an endless soup of confusion. Now get the **** out of my sight you pathetic clown, I have far better things to do then listen to your **** !

everything i have said makes perfect sense, and there is no confusion. i am not in your sight to get the **** out of, and you obviously have NOTHING better to do because you keep responding. why? because you consider yourself a scientist, and i am challenging the very science you claim to know better than me. but you don't, dumbfuck. basic physics goes beyond you.


You really are a nasty person when someone does not want to accept your blind guesses as fact, CM.

You have to work on that if you ever want to be considered an adult. Wink
igm
 
  1  
Mon 16 Dec, 2013 07:54 am
@Frank Apisa,
Finally decided to make an appearance (on this thread) Frank... what took you so long?
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Mon 16 Dec, 2013 08:22 am
@igm,
igm wrote:

Finally decided to make an appearance (on this thread) Frank... what took you so long?


Been staying away from the labeling, igm...so although I have been following this thread, I don't think I commented before. (Haven't actually checked.)

I seldom refer to myself as an agnostic anymore. I prefer to state my position...and leave the labeling alone. Not entirely, of course, but as much as possible. I've come to think that labeling causes too many misunderstandings for general use. Non-theist seems a less label-laden way of labeling (!) these days.

In any case, most people who label themselves as atheists, theists and agnostics can be completely logical at times...just as at other times they can be illogical.

Can one be more illogical than the others?

To be honest, I've heard some pretty illogical crap coming out of all three groups...just as I've heard some very logical reasoning coming from them also.

0 Replies
 
Romeo Fabulini
 
  1  
Mon 16 Dec, 2013 08:40 am
Quote:
JimmyJ asked: Do you believe it's possible for santa to also be real?

Nah mate, soon after I turned 30 years old I looked at our narrow chimney and scientifically worked out that no way hozay could he get down there, and i haven't believed in him ever since (sniffle)
0 Replies
 
JimmyJ
 
  1  
Mon 16 Dec, 2013 12:54 pm
@igm,
Santa lives on the North pole, comes to every house on one special day of the year, likes cookies, and wears a big red cloak.

The fact that you're even entertaining the question is enough evidence to almost conclude that you are not at all logical.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  2  
Mon 16 Dec, 2013 04:38 pm
@JimmyJ,
And just what is not real about the imaginary object you described ?
"Non things" are further away beyond the scope of imagination itself...Santa is certainly something !
0 Replies
 
igm
 
  2  
Mon 16 Dec, 2013 04:50 pm
@JimmyJ,
JimmyJ wrote:

Santa lives on the North pole, comes to every house on one special day of the year, likes cookies, and wears a big red cloak.

The fact that you're even entertaining the question is enough evidence to almost conclude that you are not at all logical.

Now you've defined 'your' concept of 'santa' I could give you an answer but I have no 'reason' to... as your reply says everything about your logical prowess... or lack thereof... but thanks for your 'valuable' contribution... and so festive, as well... keep up the good work!
JimmyJ
 
  1  
Mon 16 Dec, 2013 06:51 pm
@igm,
Or you're just copping out because you know that you'll end up looking silly by entertaining the idea of santa.

Being unable to prove a negative does not make atheists "illogical". We can't fully disprove a flying spaghetti monster, or the tooth fairy, but we can reasonably assert that they aren't real.
carnaticmystery
 
  1  
Mon 16 Dec, 2013 07:17 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
You really are a nasty person when someone does not want to accept your blind guesses as fact, CM.

yes i am nasty to dumbfucks like you and fil who insult me. i am sorry you believe heisenberg's theories and the entirety of physics is 'blind guesses'.

Quote:
You have to work on that if you ever want to be considered an adult.

you flatter yourself, thinking i would want you to consider me an adult, or anything for that matter. as for the idea of adults acting 'childish', it is a nonsensical idea coming from the limited perspective of adulthood/expanded logic/reasoning/intelligence = good, and childish/immaturity/fun/stupidity = bad. very primitive reasoning you got going on buddy.
carnaticmystery
 
  1  
Mon 16 Dec, 2013 07:20 pm
@igm,
Quote:
Finally decided to make an appearance (on this thread) Frank... what took you so long?

he thought i was too harsh on fil. what is fil gay or something? i didn't think my response was that harsh. just demolishing any possible idea that current physics proves finiteness in the universe, on any scale. all possible scales existing in the universe are infinite by definition and by observation and experience.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Mon 16 Dec, 2013 07:30 pm
0 Replies
 
carnaticmystery
 
  1  
Mon 16 Dec, 2013 07:34 pm
@JimmyJ,
Quote:
Or you're just copping out because you know that you'll end up looking silly by entertaining the idea of santa.

what is silly about entertaining the idea of santa? the concept of santa was created by humans as a fun fantasy for children. the concept of god was created by humans as an explanation for the entirety of life. the plausibility of a 'fun fantasy for children' being absolutely true, and 'an explanation for the entirety of life' being absolutely true, are different.
Quote:
Being unable to prove a negative does not make atheists "illogical". We can't fully disprove a flying spaghetti monster, or the tooth fairy, but we can reasonably assert that they aren't real.

yes you can reasonably assert that those things are not real, including santa, and all human concepts.

you can also reasonably assert that anything does not exist, including all apparently real things in the real universe, by going deeper into physics.

furthermore, probably the one and only thing that you CANNOT reasonably assert is that an 'explanation for the entirety of life' does not exist. so god, or at least as defined in hinduism as 'the entirety of existence' is actually the one assertion that is reasonable.

this is coming from a non-atheist, non-theist, non-agnostic perspective. how can i be non-theist, and still accept hindu philosophies? because i believe all religions point ultimately to god as simply the entirety of existence, including consciousness/matter/anything else that can exist. once those two things are equated, god=universe, there is no more question of theism vs atheism because the concept of 'god' is no different to the concept of your entire experience of life and the eternal experience of the universe of life.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.95 seconds on 12/25/2024 at 07:38:44