Yet another damn terrorist attack

[Dinner]

http://m.bbc.com/news/video_and_audio

The religion of peace strikes again.

[Dinner]

That doesn't appear to be the case here based on the evidence thus far. So far it seems that someone like the typical liberal Poly OT poster snapped over a parking dispute,

He was a raging gun nut who wouldn't go any where without a gun stuffed down his pants so, no, he doesn't sound like a typical liberal.

[DinoDoc]

He was a raging gun nut who wouldn't go any where without a gun stuffed down his pants so, no, he doesn't sound like a typical liberal.

His social media postings say otherwise.

[kentonio]

A hardcore atheistic stance has as much supporting evidence as both Christianity and Scientology.

Technically true, but at the same time not really. Saying that something doesn't exist based on the evidence of such a thing being actually impossible in the face of everything we know about the laws of physics is not the same as claiming that stuff is all true but not being able to prove it.

Athiests should technically add 'probably' to 'god does not exist', but if you do that then you have to add 'probably' to literally anything anyone claims to be true and that's a lot of extra effort just to make people who believe in invisible things feel better about themselves. Apply those same rules of proof to the wider world and there is absolutely nothing that can be held up as absolute. Given that the only people who care are the ones holding the evidence free views, why does it matter?

I think the thing that winds me up the most is this whole attitude of 'You cannot and will never be able to prove or disprove god, and this is a good thing' some religious people have. In what way is god not being provable actually beneficial to anyone, especially if you believe that god is a real thing? The dude supposedly interacted constantly with early humanity, sent a guy tablets full of rules, and had no issues with intervening to burn **** and slaughter people who pissed him off, yet now apparently its super important that he not only doesn't show his face but that he never does anything that could possibly prove his existence? What ****ing sense does that make?

[Sava]

That doesn't appear to be the case here

which is probably why I began with the phrase "on a side note"

you illiterate cracker fuck

[Sava]

Technically true, but at the same time not really. Saying that something doesn't exist based on the evidence of such a thing being actually impossible in the face of everything we know about the laws of physics is not the same as claiming that stuff is all true but not being able to prove it.

I agree with you. Think of it this way. We are dealing with mentally retarded people. Our arguments need to be brought down to their level or else they'll continue to cling to that pathetic technicality.

[Jon Miller]

Saying that something doesn't exist based on the evidence of such a thing being actually impossible in the face of everything we know about the laws of physics is not the same as claiming that stuff is all true but not being able to prove it.

We know that some things exist that are impossible based on everything we know (currently) about the laws of physics.

Whenever see posts like this from people who oppose theism, I wonder how they can be so unthinking.

JM

[Sava]

I wonder how they can be so unthinking.

Right back at ya

[kentonio]

We know that some things exist that are impossible based on everything we know (currently) about the laws of physics.

Whenever see posts like this from people who oppose theism, I wonder how they can be so unthinking.

JM

So if I come to you with a physics theory that is completely unsupported by anything you know to be true, and which flies in the face of everything you do know to be true, you're going to pay that theory respect? More than that, you're going to insist that it's just as likely to be true as that it isn't true?

[Sava]

So if I come to you with a physics theory that is completely unsupported by anything you know to be true, and which flies in the face of everything you do know to be true, you're going to pay that theory respect? More than that, you're going to insist that it's just as likely to be true as that it isn't true?

No. It only works if the "physics" talks to you. Sorry.

[Dinner]

Ken, there is a difference between an agnostic and an atheist for a reason.

[Jon Miller]

But why should I or anyone care what you think about science?

I am the scientist (a physicist even). And the majority of scientists and physicists agree with me.

Not just the theist inclined scientists, but the atheist inclined scientists also (the only ones who are 'opposed' are the philosophical philistines like Dawkins). I gave a link to a book by one of the atheist inclined scientists earlier (The island of knowledge).

JM

[Jon Miller]

So if I come to you with a physics theory that is completely unsupported by anything you know to be true, and which flies in the face of everything you do know to be true, you're going to pay that theory respect? More than that, you're going to insist that it's just as likely to be true as that it isn't true?

Are you able to understand the difference between what is science and not science? Science is that which is part of the natural world, that I can probe, and that I can model.

If you bring to me something, like the existence of God, which can't be probed (or modelled) how is that a physics theory? That doesn't mean I can't believe in or not.

An example of a non-supernatural 'theory' which is not scientific is the theory that there is an infinite multi-universe (in the broadest sense). It doesn't mean that I or my colleagues can not believe it or discuss it.

As far as "lies in the face of everything you do know to be true" they are equivalent.

JM

[kentonio]

But why should I or anyone care what you think about science?

I am the scientist (a physicist even). And the majority of scientists and physicists agree with me.

Not just the theist inclined scientists, but the atheist inclined scientists also (the only ones who are 'opposed' are the philosophical philistines like Dawkins). I gave a link to a book by one of the atheist inclined scientists earlier (The island of knowledge).

JM

Whoah there, dial that back a second. What exactly is it that you believe and I supposedly don't?

[kentonio]

Are you able to understand the difference between what is science and not science? Science is that which is part of the natural world, that I can probe, and that I can model.

If you bring to me something, like the existence of God, which can't be probed (or modelled) how is that a physics theory? That doesn't mean I can't believe in or not.

An example of a non-supernatural 'theory' which is not scientific is the theory that there is an infinite multi-universe (in the broadest sense). It doesn't mean that I or my colleagues can not believe it or discuss it.

As far as "lies in the face of everything you do know to be true" they are equivalent.

JM

Ah, so you're actually just intellectually dishonest, and choose to place your religious beliefs in a seperate category outside the scientific where no proof exists or can ever be found? An infinite multi-universe wouldn't be 'outside science' ffs, just because we lack the tools currently to examine or model it.

As for not 'believing or discussing it' who exactly has tried to say that religion can't be discussed or that people can't choose to believe whatever they want? The issue here is expecting those beliefs to be treated as valid or worthy of respect by those who don't believe.