Orange U glad...

Yup. People seem to forget that scientist are not sure if climate change is effected by us or not. Its still in debate so people shouldn't be quick to bash those who don't believe we have an impact on our climate.

Oh we're definitely helping, but it might not all be our fault.

And while the focus turns to climate change, there are often verifiable atrocities not only done to the environment, but subsidized and encouraged. Sometimes accidentally as well, like with the heavy metals used in batteries of hybrid cars causing environmental damage.

Who you gonna call?

Well certainly not Ghostbusters

Using the argument from ignorance and the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" argument, are not reasons to think something is real.

Take discovering a new planet in our solar system but the only reason we couldn't see it was because it is covered in a thick layer of translucent gas that makes it near invisible when in contact with light. But we one day discover a method of looking at the planets that shows this planet exists.

Now this planet obviously existed well before we discovered it, HOWEVER even if there was one guy spewing that he knew this planet existed and he was right all along, does not mean that he was justified in his reasoning. We are humans, we are not omniscient, we need to accept that. That means having to accept saying "I don't know" to certain things, and asking for evidence for the claims we do say we know. Faith is useless, assumption is useless, only facts and well supported theories can be used in science.

So yes there will always be an unknown part of the universe we need to discover, but this does not mean we sit here and believe demons and ghosts are real because "There's a chance it can be." that is idiotic.

But the same is true for not believing in something. I'm not spewing "hurr durr I believe in ghosts." Just because you can't fully understand something doesn't mean it's not there. There's a lot of encounters with unnatural forces or just cryptics in general on this earth. Not there they'll all true, but there must be something producing these myths. I'm simply saying that I believe there is something unexplainable that can occur to produce the mysterious cases we know of. Whether it's a chemical reaction in the brain or some weird energy force.

One of my past teachers had weird encounters in his house, including his bathroom light turning on and off in the middle of the night and the flushing of his toilet which coincided with that. This could have been an intruder in the house, or an electrical problem combined with odd plumbing problems. He could also be lying. Yet there's also the possibly that some unexplainable force did exist that acted upon either him to imagine those events or to make them occur.

Take your planet theory for example. Let's say one man was able to accidentally view that planet one night through a somewhat faulty telescope. He did view the planet and he was right that it existed, he just had limited proof. His testimony of, "I know what I saw." wouldn't be enough combined with his bad telescope and the randomness he viewed the planet.

I find it idiotic that as humans, we can't be more open to the possibility of strange things. What if there is a rare compound that manipulates energy forces in a certain area but it's so rare that we can't easily measure it and its appearance is random? This substance isn't a ghost but it would act in the same way as a ghost might, by manipulating objects without reason or making noises that we can't find the source of.

I'm not at all suggesting we should believe that everything we can't explain is super natural. I'm suggesting we keep an open mind about the things we can't yet explain.

We are open to the possibility, but it's not reasonable to accept that something exists, or doesn't exist until we have enough evidence. Bad choices can be made when we decide things based on things we don't know. There are less examples recently because we've come to learn this. However, we used to think that people were witches, because we accepted the idea of magic due to things we didn't understand. We killed a lot of people based on this false ideas. To address your big foot argument in your other comment, it doesn't seem like a coincidence to you that people already know what to expect big foot to look like, and that's what they always tend to see? Their imagination already knows what they expect to see, so it's not at all a stretch to say that all the witnesses have either mistook something for big foot, or made it up. Many witnesses have had encounters with creatures of similar description to the conspiracy theory of reptiles that can change their shape and run the government, but that doesn't add any credibility to the claims at all. All these are arguments are based on the same logical fallacy that noblexfenrir pointed out, the argument from ignorance. We don't know, so we can place any random thing we make up as the answer.

(Post 2.)

"One of my past teachers had weird encounters in his house, including his bathroom light turning on and off in the middle of the night and the flushing of his toilet which coincided with that. This could have been an intruder in the house, or an electrical problem combined with odd plumbing problems. He could also be lying. Yet there's also the possibly that some unexplainable force did exist that acted upon either him to imagine those events or to make them occur. "

Occams razor is a simple answer to this one, but even so, you cannot pre-suppose supernatural claims without first proving there is a supernatural to begin with.

So say ghosts did it, fine but first ghosts need to be proven to exist.

"Take your planet theory for example. Let's say one man was able to accidentally view that planet one night through a somewhat faulty telescope. He did view the planet and he was right that it existed, he just had limited proof. His testimony of, "I know what I saw." wouldn't be enough combined with his bad telescope and the randomness he viewed the planet. "

This is personal experience fallacy, I'm not going to go explaining why it's faulty for determinations of reality.

"I find it idiotic that as humans, we can't be more open to the possibility of strange things. What if there is a rare compound that manipulates energy forces in a certain area but it's so rare that we can't easily measure it and its appearance is random? This substance isn't a ghost but it would act in the same way as a ghost might, by manipulating objects without reason or making noises that we can't find the source of. "

Again, we humans are not omniscient creatures, we absolutely should not assume anything as a result. We collect evidence and make judgements on that, not "well this is probable so it could happen" no, it didn't happen until it was proven a viable option.

(Post 1.)
"But the same is true for not believing in something. I'm not spewing "hurr durr I believe in ghosts." Just because you can't fully understand something doesn't mean it's not there. There's a lot of encounters with unnatural forces or just cryptics in general on this earth. Not there they'll all true, but there must be something producing these myths. I'm simply saying that I believe there is something unexplainable that can occur to produce the mysterious cases we know of. Whether it's a chemical reaction in the brain or some weird energy force. "

No, not believing in something is the default position, and belief should only rise when evidence is provided. These occurances are not "unnatural forces", everything we have ever observed is explainable through natural processes and basic fundamentals of the universe, and even if we couldn't readily give an explanation, this hardly means we accept supernatural explanations. This is because for those to be even considered, the premise that supernatural entities even exist must be proven or pre-supposed, the latter being faulty logic.

The only things we can rightly assume is: The unexplained was the result of a faulty personal experience (chemical reactions in the brain and what not) and it occurred by natural processes but we don't know exactly how yet. To suppose anything else as a conclusion is idiotic.

"Something" must be producing these myths, yes. We call it "human imagination."

Sasquatch, Loch Ness, ghosts, spirits, possessions, God, all the like.

In order to avoid the shit storm that occurs when speaking of God, I'm going to bring up your point of "Big Foot."

We have video proof of many encounters with an ape like creature in North America. We have hairs and blood samples. Many witnesses have had encounters with a creature with similar descriptions. Not all of these encounters and not all of this evidence is true, but some of it is.

You're telling me that if hundreds of people have had similar stories of a similar creature that has produced evidence then that make it fake? Don't all those stories point to something that exists outside of our own bubble of documented cases?

Need I take the Platypus found by Darwin? A four legged mammal with a duck-bill that lays eggs? That sounded crazy at the time, but it was true.

There is zero REAL evidence for big foot. Every video is blurry. Does no one know how to use a camera? Shit, cameras on phones are great quality these days. You almost have to TRY in order to get a bad quality video these days. Once something gets hyped, people's imaginations go wild. They think they see things and honestly believe they did, or they come up with creative ways to fake big foot evidence.

Yes, I'm saying hundreds of people are wrong. That does happen. Just because many people believe something doesn't make it true, and it actually makes it less believable since we STILL have no evidence with hundreds of people trying to find evidence.

explain yourself

and i also have absolutely nothing against gay people, or "poor" people.

i'm right here with ya man

on a related note, am I the only atheist that thinks abortion is murder?

nope

quick question, do any of you have a vagina?

not here. just disapprove of it

why?

because the baby would be half mine. yes im not carrying it but still.

Sorry, but helping make a baby doesn't make it your decision. Carrying the child is much more difficult than making it.

im aware.

scenario time: You are 16 and have just gotten your GF/random chick pregnant. What do?

work my ass off.

instead of aborting that thing yes i said thing that have yet to form a single thought and maybe get a decent education thus a good job so you can properly provide for a child?

scenario 2: same thing but the girl says that she dosen't want the child, what do? Denying her to do the abortion? Or maybe trying to talk her out of it? that is a dick move mister!

be somewhat upset, but its her choice. and ive balanced lots of shit before i can work and go to school and take a kid to baseball games and shit. and if its a fetus it is a thing~

yeah cus balancing homework and football practice is the same as balancing a job + school + a child...really dude, you simply can't be that clueless...

anyway, we can continue this debate on the morrow, g'night my fine sir.

sleep tight my little angel <3

pay child support to her. take care of it and be a decent father

We need to stick together.

i mean, smaller government to me means that abortion same sex marriage and drug use is included in that.

Personally, I don't see how any of that got mixed in with actual government. I hate political parties for this reason. Limits people's thoughts. If you believe one thing, you must believe in something unrelated.

or wait, ike a blind eye sort of thing. its not there place. are we twins or something?

Exactly what I think. A smaller government should mean that they are not telling you things like "You can't marry them".

couldn't get the wording very clear. thanks and your right.

I think 125 is a bit high, i know people who score an average on IQ but are more informed on politics than the wide majority.

If someone has an IQ of 125 or over it is a pretty sure thing that they will be smart enough to actually research a candidate and see who is the best bet to run a country.

Failing that 45 years of wisdom more than makes up for a lack of IQ.

Flawless system really.

Believing that people with IQ of over 125 will do research and determine a candidate from that is pretty stupid.

I've got a IQ of 154 and I would still not care to look it up, because it would be troublesome. I'd just go with the candidate that I find most appealing for the moment.

IQ doesn't really make you smart and all knowing. Dedication and determination for a problem is what it's all about. If you're serious about politics, you will invest more time into it and make a choice from your own thoughts and feelings. IQ has nothing to do with it really.
Some people just doesn't care that much and in some cases people might actually just vote because they can.

thumbed because sheeple

I agree with what you said here, but your 'flawless system' to solve the issue if actually very VERY flawed. IQ means basically nothing. IQ is a shitty system that frankly does not work.

Yes IQ is a retarded system, but someone with an IQ of 125 has a pretty good chance of being brighter than someone with an IQ of 90.

OF COOOOOOOOOOOUUUUUUURSSEEE

Sadly not.