Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#1 - anonymous (09/27/2013) [-]
Oh yes because arrogant certitude is something that is never associated with atheism .

It is almost always
User avatar #3 to #1 - kyuubey (09/28/2013) [-]
Atheism, the position that the entire billion-galaxy universe was not specially created for us. Surely how arrogant.
User avatar #2 to #1 - MosKunas (09/28/2013) [-]
Care to explain further? You are wrong, but I just want to see where your bad logic is coming from friend.
#4 to #2 - anonymous (09/29/2013) [-]
my "Bad" logic comes from him saying that religion is arrogantly certain of it's correctness, and in that regard it is arrogant. But the same could be also said of anyone irreligious who is absolutely certain that they are correct and refuse to acknowledge that there theories could be flawed or incorrect in any way. (like a religion) Hypocrisy is the bullet point i guess.
User avatar #5 to #4 - MosKunas (09/29/2013) [-]
You should go do some research to understand what a theory is. A scientific theory is taken as fact. Evolution is a theory, as well as gravity. But I doubt you think one day you are going to float off into the atmosphere, would not thinking that be considered arrogance in your standards? Because that is what you are telling me.

The reason "arrogance" on the scientific side is not truly arrogance, and the religious side is are many reasons. But mainly because science bases its ideas on evidence, and doesn't assert to know anything that it hasn't learned about yet.

The reason people who have an evidence based mind say there is no way there can be a God is because no scientific evidence in the history of modern science has ever created a necessity for any theistic "God." So why insert one in a setting that clearly can run well on its own?

While scientists are doing this form of reasoning, religion tells us that we already know everything we need to know about the universe, and how everything works. So there is no need to question. Which is truly the definition of arrogance, not the way you described the understanding of scientific theory that I mentioned previously.

With all that said, that is all just coming from the standpoint of theories and evidence, and what that contributes to the validity of the statements on both sides. We could have a whole other discussion of why God doesn't work from a moral and ethical standpoint.
#7 to #5 - anonymous (09/29/2013) [-]
sorry, i got angry. I didn't mean to sound hostile.
#6 to #5 - anonymous (09/29/2013) [-]
I frankly could not give a **** less what science and elitist intellectuals call "fact". And my theory is that no one ever converted anyone else through an internet argument. so this should end where it stands.
User avatar #10 to #6 - awbs (12/05/2013) [-]
"I frankly could not give a **** less what science and elitist intellectuals call 'fact'."
Because trained scientists and learned philosophers are so often wrong about understanding the complexeties of the universe, while your scientifically illiterate preacher and a multithousand-year-old series of novels about morality are far superior...
How lovely.
0
#9 to #6 - awbs has deleted their comment [-]
#8 to #6 - jaguarjam (10/12/2013) [-]
I gotta back anon up. I would first like to clarify that I'm in no way christian so you guys don't get flipping excited. First of all, the point I think anon is trying to make is that scientific evidence is only relevant as evidence from the atheistic (a certain kind of atheist I might add) standpoint, just as much as a lot of things can be interpeted as evidence of something transcendental from that standpoint. Your counterargument was that "science opposed to religion works". Well, of course it does, just as much as you can make religious belief-system work (please don't rage b4 you read the next segment).

Let's make an example with the laws of physics. These were entirely created to intepret the world around us, mind you, not the other way around. We create hypothesis based on occurent events, which we then back up by experiments. We then try to integrate the proven theories together, creating some sorts of paradigms. We have to suit the theories to the way world behaves. Lot of times, our theories are proven wrong and we have to re-evaluate (inb4 - similiar proccess occurs in non-fundamental religious belief system).

Also, science alone does not disprove metaphysical god. Maybe the biblical one, but then again I find it silly when people criticise religion, basing their whole argumentation on fundamental part of that religion ("people who say Bible is 100% true are wrong THEREFORE the whole of christianity is wrong").

Last and least, the ethics of determinism (which I would assume as your atheist belief-system) are ****** up the same way fundamental religion is (in short, it negates the possibility of free will the same way an existence of omniscient and omnipotent being does, therefore ethics has no meaning). I have a post entirely about this in this section called "I would like to see what you can make of this", you can check it out.

Sorry bout the long post, hope I won't piss you off too much, don't mean Cheerio.
 Friends (0)