Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Most annoying theist lines of argument?
Comments
-
-
-
-
I agree with Sam, but I disagree with Emma:p
Gravity was, until Newton, just there no one really noticed it at all because it fit their reality common sense based view of reality at the time. There was no ridiculous ideas of "floating" in space (It's actually terrifying falling btw) or "weightlessness" on the roller coaster. People took the world as it was on blind faith and the idea of being stuck to the rock hardly crossed any of their minds.
The reason I suggested "protons" to Jimi is that now that we have been in space people are well aware of gravity and it's effects anyone who has seen a film shot/based in space knows, conceptually at least, as to what gravity pertains.
So belief in gravity is no longer necessary : it's there and we've all seen its effects.
Em, so maybe I agree with Emma after all?
0 -
I agree with Sam, but I disagree with Emma:p
Gravity was, until Newton, just there no one really noticed it at all because it fit their reality common sense based view of reality at the time. There was no ridiculous ideas of "floating" in space (It's actually terrifying falling btw) or "weightlessness" on the roller coaster. People took the world as it was on blind faith and the idea of being stuck to the rock hardly crossed any of their minds.
The reason I suggested "protons" to Jimi is that now that we have been in space people are well aware of gravity and it's effects anyone who has seen a film shot/based in space knows, conceptually at least, as to what gravity pertains.
So belief in gravity is no longer necessary : it's there and we've all seen its effects.
Em, so maybe I agree with Emma after all?
You don't have to make me feel better
I'm simply trying to differentiate between what is a theory and what is a fact and how god and gravity can't be compared. 0 -
Advertisement
-
I agree with Sam, but I disagree with Emma:p
Gravity was, until Newton, just there no one really noticed it at all because it fit their reality common sense based view of reality at the time. There was no ridiculous ideas of "floating" in space (It's actually terrifying falling btw) or "weightlessness" on the roller coaster. People took the world as it was on blind faith and the idea of being stuck to the rock hardly crossed any of their minds.
The reason I suggested "protons" to Jimi is that now that we have been in space people are well aware of gravity and it's effects anyone who has seen a film shot/based in space knows, conceptually at least, as to what gravity pertains.
So belief in gravity is no longer necessary : it's there and we've all seen its effects.
Em, so maybe I agree with Emma after all?
And PS. I think there are several scientists who might be annoyed that apparently, nobody thought of gravity before Newton
Aristotle had something to say about it and that predated Newton by nearly 2000 years. Albeit, his theory of gravity is pretty ridiculous compared to today's standard but he still tried to address it. Not to mention Galileo... 0 -
doctoremma wrote: »And PS. I think there are several scientists who might be annoyed that apparently, nobody thought of gravity before Newton Aristotle had something to say about it and that predated Newton by nearly 2000 years. Albeit, his theory of gravity is pretty ridiculous compared to today's standard but he still tried to address it. Not to mention Galileo...
I was kinda referring to the general population, but I really should have said Galileo.
The principle of my point is still the same though.0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Back on topic,
Yes sir, sir, right awayAnother one and I'm amazed no one has mentioned it is so far :
"Atheism is responsible for Hitler, and Stalin i.e Mass Murder boi!"
So is arithmetic.
Wasn't Hitler a pantheist? As far as our historical records show, which I'm obviously prepared to accept as propogated by those who may have a specific agenda....0 -
-
-
-
'Sexed up atheism'!?:eek:
Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!
We're immoral repugnant gits:(
I love Dawkins but always feel slightly thrown when he uses phrases like "sexed up". I think it falls way outside the phrases an eminent posh scientist should use
But you're right, obviously. I was being provocative.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
Funglegunk wrote: »Well it's a murky area. But saying 'Hitler was an atheist' isn't really accurate.
It's also irrelevant. 0 -
doctoremma wrote: »It's also irrelevant.
I agree, but then I'm not arguing that him being an atheist (which is debatable) also caused him to be a genocidal maniac, as some theists do. :P I'm pretty sure it was the fact that he was a vegetarian.0 -
-
doctoremma wrote: »It's also irrelevant.
I agree that Hitler's personal atheism (or not) is irrelevant. He was such an opportunistic bastard that you can't really trust any of his contradictory statements more than any other.
However, the argument about atheism and Nazism goes a bit deeper than Hitler's own beliefs. There is a common perception, shared by many eminent historians, that the philosophy of Nietzsche paved the way for Nazism.0 -
-
doctoremma wrote: »Is that Nietzsche's fault?
Again, that's irrelevant if it was his philosophy's fault. The Nazi thing is not offered as a criticism of individual atheists, but rather of an atheistic philosophy.
Having said that, it's not an argument I agree with myself, as I believe there have been religious philosophies that were just as destructive.
I don't think the Nietzche thing is a valid argument for theism at all, but it is useful to keep in our back pockets for when the occasional atheist forgets their own glass house and starts getting too holier-than-thou in throwing stones at the Crusades or the Inquisition. 0 -
-
The difference is that, while I haven't looked in depth into the theory of gravity, I could if I wanted to and could have the theory proven beyond all reasonable doubt. Gravity is a scientific fact. However, if there were thousands of competing theories about why things fall, none of which had been proven, and I came across someone who appeared to have arbitrarily decided one was right and the rest were wrong, that's a very different situation to accepting the scientific consensus.
I would ask him why he picked that one and if his answer was "it's just what I believe", I would look at how his life was effected by this choice. If that decision made no difference to his life whatsoever I'd have no problem accepting it as an answer. If the decision doesn't matter then what you decide doesn't matter either. But if believing in christianity doesn't make any difference to someone's life then they don't really believe it, which is fine too. The problem begins when this belief has a big effect on their life and the lives of those around them and they've got nothing to justify it. If you don't know why you believe something you should stop believing it until you find a reasondoctoremma wrote: »Disagree. Some people will believe in a particular theory of gravity. Others will believe in an alternative theory. Neither party will dispute the fact of gravity, they are just debating the question of how gravity works.
The average Joe will likely have very little clue about how gravity works - even those in the know are trying to work it out. Average Joe may not have much to say about which theories of gravity he finds convincing but I have no doubt that he would not deny the existence of gravity. The evidence, after all, surrounds us. It is undeniably a fact. Just because you don't know the mathematical equations does not put throw the fact of gravity into question.
You are suggesting that this somehow falls under the category of blind acceptance when it doesn't.
This is blind acceptance.I agree with Sam, but I disagree with Emma:p
Gravity was, until Newton, just there no one really noticed it at all because it fit their reality common sense based view of reality at the time. There was no ridiculous ideas of "floating" in space (It's actually terrifying falling btw) or "weightlessness" on the roller coaster. People took the world as it was on blind faith and the idea of being stuck to the rock hardly crossed any of their minds.
The reason I suggested "protons" to Jimi is that now that we have been in space people are well aware of gravity and it's effects anyone who has seen a film shot/based in space knows, conceptually at least, as to what gravity pertains.
So belief in gravity is no longer necessary : it's there and we've all seen its effects.
Em, so maybe I agree with Emma after all?doctoremma wrote: »You don't have to make me feel better I'm simply trying to differentiate between what is a theory and what is a fact and how god and gravity can't be compared.
Talk about missing the point.
Also Doctor Emma, that bit in bold is not the purpose of my analogy.
I can see that there is no purpose in banging my head against this particular wall, so yeah, replace gravity with protons then if it stops these ramblings.0 -
Advertisement
-
Anyone mentioned Pascal's wager? Not many theists seem to use it, but a lot of agnostics I have met do.doctoremma wrote: »I love Dawkins but always feel slightly thrown when he uses phrases like "sexed up". I think it falls way outside the phrases an eminent posh scientist should use
Makes sense, considering dawkins is basically a 'sexed up' Emma Watson
0
Advertisement