How mainstream do you see the Atheist movement becoming in the next 20-25 years?

[wize fool]

This is a pretty dumb post.

Do you have to set your hand on fire to know it burns ?

I shouldn't have to build a robot and send it off mars to be able understand and believe what's going on.
Even then I don't happen to have millions of dollars lyin around and a team of geniuses to help me make it happen.

These sort of short sighted "Prove it or it didn't happen" posts always baffle me.
Even I ask why don'tyou prove this stuff to yourself ?
DO THE MATH !
Go take a college course on physical science, biological science, chemsitry,physics etc.

"Prove it or it didn't happen" is what atheism is based on, friend. You are proving only that you are a hypocrite. That's exactly my point. Thank you.

 

[the cac mamba]

Thank you for that post. Very relevant. Most of us believe stars are huge masses of gas burning billions of miles away. But none of us have actually been to a star to confirm this. How come no one is calling on this?

because there is no agenda behind it. nobody says that if you dont believe that stars are burning masses of gas, a powerful being will punish you for eternity after you die

your comparison to religion is laughable

 

[wize fool]

they even deny the work of their Islamic brothers

Al-Biruni

I'm not denying anything. I know the advancements made in mathematics and science by Islam. Have I personally proved every theory? No. But I'm not denying them. You're clearly missing my point.

I believe Jupiter to be the size scientists say it is, even though I can't prove it. I also believe in the existence of The Creator even though I can't see him. You are the only one denying anything, friend. And in doing so, you're proving my point: that you are a hypocrite.

 

[wize fool]

because there is no agenda behind it. nobody says that if you dont believe that stars are burning masses of gas, a powerful being will punish you for eternity after you die

your comparison to religion is laughable

That has nothing to do with it. Does God exist? It's a simple yes or no question. Is a star a burning mass of gases? Yes or no. Both answers are based on faith in your case since you, personally can't prove either one.

 

[the cac mamba]

That has nothing to do with it. Does God exist? It's a simple yes or no question. Is a star a burning mass of gases? Yes or no. Both answers are based on faith in your case since you, personally can't prove either one.

both theories were posed by men. if you want to leave it at what you just posted, like a simpleton, then feel free.

your holier-than thou act is getting tired real fast. eat a dikk, friend

 

[wize fool]

both theories were posed by men. if you want to leave it at what you just posted, like a simpleton, then feel free.

your holier-than thou act is getting tired real fast. eat a dikk, friend

Holier than thou or smarter than thou? Let's be accurate. No one can make you feel inferior without your consent, friend. Your anger just illustrates that you're losing.

 

[the cac mamba]

Holier than thou or smarter than thou? Let's be accurate. No one can make you feel inferior without your consent, friend. Your anger just illustrates that you're losing.

what makes you smarter than me? because you told me you are?

 

[daze23]

I believe Jupiter to be the size scientists say it is, even though I can't prove it

but you can prove it

On Sizes and Distances - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[wize fool]

what makes you smarter than me? because you told me you are?

I never said anything about being holier than you. For some reason, you're feeling inferior. Since we're having an intellectual debate, one can only assume that inferiority must be intellectually based. You called it "holier" probably because you were at a loss for words. I simply corrected you. That I happened to further prove that point in the process is strictly a coincidence.

 

[The Real]

Muhammad was the most trustworthy man in Mecca. This was his reputation. He began his message by asking the people if they would believe him if he told them there was an army on the other side of the mountain waiting to attack them. They said yes because he was known for truth and was trustworthy. He then asked them if they would believe him if he told them God had spoken to him through an angel and the people didn't believe him. So I would have to disagree with your analysis.

In addition, whether I can duplicate the method or not is irrelevant. The point is you haven't duplicated it and are therefore just trusting someone who hasn't proven to have half the integrity of Muhammad or the prophets.

When you, personally, produce said results, then you will have a legitimate rebuttal.

Muhammad didn't and can't tell you or I anything now, though. Rather, someone else told you that Muhammad said and did those things.

Scientists who spread info about the natural world are the same people doing the experiments. In order for them to be like religious people, they would have to not do the experiments themselves, and instead say something like "I just found this book in a cave that details the size of Jupiter. We should all believe it," or "someone else told me the size of Jupiter, and you should believe it because he's trustworthy even though I've never verified his methods."

That's the difference between the two. Someone told you that Muhammad did those things, and that he was a trustworthy man. You read all that in a book based on someone's recommendation. You could never meet Muhammad, or even anyone who knew him, and can't verify anything about him or his methods, not to mention his results, whereas you can verify all those things for scientists and their findings. You can even reproduce those findings if you really want to, but if not, the inductive logic behind them is still solid, which cannot be said for religion, which is ultimately more reliant on faith.

 

[wize fool]

but you can prove it

On Sizes and Distances - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How To Use The Sun To Calculate The Size Of The Earth - YouTube

And you believe this method is soundproof. Because someone told you it was. You can't escape the fact that most things you know to be "true" are actually based on belief.

 

[wize fool]

Muhammad didn't and can't tell you or I anything now, though. Rather, someone else told you that Muhammad said and did those things.

Scientists who spread info about the natural world are the same people doing the experiments. In order for them to be like religious people, they would have to not do the experiments themselves, and instead say something like "I just found this book in a cave that details the size of Jupiter. We should all believe it," or "someone else told me the size of Jupiter, and you should believe it because he's trustworthy even though I've never verified his methods."

That's the difference between the two. Someone told you that Muhammad did those things, and that he was a trustworthy man. You read all that in a book based on someone's recommendation. You could never meet Muhammad, or even anyone who knew him, and can't verify anything about him or his methods, not to mention his results, whereas you can verify all those things for scientists and their findings.

Yes someone told me about Muhammad. But I'm not the one hypocritically denying that most truths are based on belief.

 

[The Real]

Yes someone told me about Muhammad. But I'm not the one hypocritically denying that most truths are based on belief.

No one is denying that beliefs are an important part of the scientific worldview. The point is that not all beliefs are equally provable or disprovable, and that science uses logic and empirical methods whereas religion does not, making the beliefs it generates much more reliable than those of religion. That is where you are being dishonest.

You are also being dishonest when you suggest that both are equally based on beliefs, as if there are no facts involved in the world of science. That's why it's a mistake to avoid the point that scientific results are independently verifiable.

 

[daze23]

And you believe this method is soundproof. Because someone told you it was. You can't escape the fact that most things you know to be "true" are actually based on belief.

it's right there breh. it's triangles. didn't you ever calculate the height of the flagpole in school?

watch the video with da gawd Sagan. it's a wonderful tale of how simple yet ingenious the concept is

or just watch this video:

 

[wize fool]

No one is denying that beliefs are an important part of the scientific worldview. The point is that not all beliefs are equally provable or disprovable, and that science uses logic and empirical methods whereas religion does not, making the beliefs it generates much more reliable than those of religion. That is where you are being dishonest.

You are also being dishonest when you suggest that both are equally based on beliefs, as if there are no facts involved in the world of science. That's why it's a mistake to avoid the point that scientific results are independently verifiable.

Science deals with material things within the creation. God exists outside of the creation. There is no scientific method to prove God.

And as far as YOU are concerned, I'm not being dishonest at all. Have you ever traveled to a star? If not your definition of it is based on belief. Sure you can back up your belief by presenting different methods used. But your trust in those methods is also based on belief.

The 2 things are very different, I agree, but their commonality lies in the fact they are based on belief. This is why there are old people who don't believe man ever walked on the moon. You say it with conviction but in reality your belief holds just as much weight as theirs You'll point to pictures to base your belief on and they'll say they believe those photos were doctored. And round and round we go...