Why I love atheists.

[foodcritic]

You probably meet Atheists every day and don't even know it. I'm an average guy with a wife, job and house in the suburbs and unless you asked you'd never know I was one. We aren't secret, evil people out to get you. The only time I care about a person's religion is when they use it as an excuse to harm others or infringe on their rights.

Epitaph on an atheists tomb:

At least I lived my life to the fullest and didn't worry so much about what happens after.

You borrow our moral values and ethics so you fit in nicely.

The only time I care about atheists is when they use as an excuse to harm others or infringe on their rights...Oh wait that's natural selection.....

 

[hvp05]

You borrow our moral values and ethics so you fit in nicely.

Because only Jews/Christians could be enlightened enough to realize that murder and lying are harmful to society.












McGinn, you will be wasting your time responding to foodcritic; his brain is mush.

 

[UNA]

Wirelessly posted

You borrow our moral values and ethics so you fit in nicely.

Because only Jews/Christians could be enlightened enough to realize that murder and lying are harmful to society.












McGinn, you will be wasting your time responding to foodcritic; his brain is mush.

Yes hvp, didn't you know? We humans had no morals until God gave us the 10 Commandments, that's why God understood that Cain didn't know he shouldn't kill his brother (since God hadn't told him yet).








Oh wait...

 

[McGinn77]

Wirelessly posted

And you borrow moral codes from Egyptians who had the prior to your books Exodus before the 10 commandments. Morals come from the human need for society not because god says so. I can have strong morals and beliefs without god especially since one of my strong beliefs is that there is no god.

 

[McGinn77]

Wirelessly posted

You probably meet Atheists every day and don't even know it. I'm an average guy with a wife, job and house in the suburbs and unless you asked you'd never know I was one. We aren't secret, evil people out to get you. The only time I care about a person's religion is when they use it as an excuse to harm others or infringe on their rights.

Epitaph on an atheists tomb:

At least I lived my life to the fullest and didn't worry so much about what happens after.

You borrow our moral values and ethics so you fit in nicely.

The only time I care about atheists is when they use as an excuse to harm others or infringe on their rights...Oh wait that's natural selection.....

Oh and by the way who's rights have I infringed upon and who did I harm?

 

[PsyOps]

It's not a question of being more educated, it's a question of willingness to have elasticity of thought.

That 'elasticity of thought' goes both ways; doesn't it?

 

[PsyOps]

So, you openly accept Psy's point of view?

No, mine comes from an uneducated POV (so I've twice been reminded). This demands that I am unable to exercise 'elasticity of thought'. Only the most elightened among us are capable of this and privy to understand its intricacies.

 

[McGinn77]

That 'elasticity of thought' goes both ways; doesn't it?

Yes it does, and in light of new evidence a hypothesis must be changed, that's what I do. Give me your compelling new evidence, I love new evidence, I wait for new evidence. I read as many articles, yes both scientific AND religious to get new evidence so please, if you have some show me I'd love to look into it.

 

[McGinn77]

No, mine comes from an uneducated POV (so I've twice been reminded). This demands that I am unable to exercise 'elasticity of thought'. Only the most elightened among us are capable of this and privy to understand its intricacies.

Yes, because clearly "I don't think you're understanding the science" (which by the way clearly you didn't if you read the article I posted) means "you're an idiot and you'll never learn".

 

[PsyOps]

I certainly never said that and definitely never intended to imply it; if that's the impression you got than I apologize!! I actually figured you were pretty well educated; hence the well thought out responses that don'r solely rely on emotion

Disagreement shouldn't imply disrespect.

The words "I don't think you understand" states one of two things (or both):

1) You are incapable of understanding

2) You are not educated properly

Either through implication or or outright belief, the bottom line is you believe you hold a superior understanding on matters scientific to me. Not knowing the first thing about me you've made a fatal error in scientific thought; assuming something is that you can't possible know is.

Give that some thought.

 

[UNA]

Wirelessly posted

So, you openly accept Psy's point of view?

No, mine comes from an uneducated POV (so I've twice been reminded). This demands that I am unable to exercise 'elasticity of thought'. Only the most elightened among us are capable of this and privy to understand its intricacies.

Hmf...apology not accepted, I guess :shrug:

 

[PsyOps]

Yes it does, and in light of new evidence a hypothesis must be changed, that's what I do. Give me your compelling new evidence, I love new evidence, I wait for new evidence. I read as many articles, yes both scientific AND religious to get new evidence so please, if you have some show me I'd love to look into it.

My new evidence for what? Do you even understand the position I'm taking on this? If you do, tell me what you think it is.

 

[PsyOps]

Hmf...apology not accepted, I guess :shrug:

There is no need for apologies and such; just stick with the discussion and stop assuming you know so much about the people your debating - whom you don't even know. That shouldn't even enter into the discussion.

 

[UNA]

Wirelessly posted

I certainly never said that and definitely never intended to imply it; if that's the impression you got than I apologize!! I actually figured you were pretty well educated; hence the well thought out responses that don'r solely rely on emotion

Disagreement shouldn't imply disrespect.

The words "I don't think you understand" states one of two things (or both):

1) You are incapable of understanding

2) You are not educated properly

Either through implication or or outright belief, the bottom line is you believe you hold a superior understanding on matters scientific to me. Not knowing the first thing about me you've made a fatal error in scientific thought; assuming something is that you can't possible know is.

Give that some thought.

Like I said; apology not accepted I guess...

If I thought you were incapable of understanding or poorly educated I would have said so. I apologized for implying something you were offended by AND points out that I actually think you're pretty smart but you chose to ignore that I suppose.

I am superior to no one, not you and not anyone else who can present an opinion and back it up; which you do. That doesn't, however, mean that I have to agree with you. Like I said, disagreement doesn't imply disrespect.

I'm still sorry I implied that I thought you were less educated or incapable, now it's your turn to be gracious! Honestly, I thought you were above this...

 

[McGinn77]

My new evidence for what? Do you even understand the position I'm taking on this? If you do, tell me what you think it is.

Your point seems to be that a theory is a theory and all should be treated equally.

My points are a) there are 2 definitions of "theory" and 2) my theory is supported by evidence.

What I'm asking is do you have evidence to support "your" theory as I have provided evidence for "my" theory. (quotes because neither theory originated with the person presenting it here)

Additionally, a lack of understanding of a specific topic does not in anyway imply a lack of intelligence or knowledge. Nobody knows everything and saying "I don't think you understand" does not in any way mean "I don't think you CAN understand". It means, "I don't think you understand the specific thing we are talking about right now" and in my case was accompanied with "here take a look at this and see if it helps" (the link I posted).

 

[hvp05]

There is no need for apologies and such; just stick with the discussion and stop assuming you know so much about the people your debating - whom you don't even know. That shouldn't even enter into the discussion.

Why take it so personally and negatively? Some people know more than others on different things. :shrug:

I don't think you have to "know" your debating opponent to realize that they hold a wrong belief on something. If one makes an erroneous statement about a fundamental scientific tenet they should be advised about it... otherwise, everyone is wasting their time and all may as well pack their bags and move along.

 

[PsyOps]

Why take it so personally and negatively? Some people know more than others on different things. :shrug:

I don't think you have to "know" your debating opponent to realize that they hold a wrong belief on something. If one makes an erroneous statement about a fundamental scientific tenet they should be advised about it... otherwise, everyone is wasting their time and all may as well pack their bags and move along.

Ummmm... So you feel it's necessary to remind the person you are debating with that your thought process is superior and therefore aim to marginalize that person rather than debate the issue at hand? I'm failing to see this beyond that. It's not personal for me; I'm simply stating that fact and that it serves no other pupose than to attempt to knock that person down a notch or two devoid of being able to refute their points. It's a tactic that has been used over and over and I see no purpose in it.

It boils down to "Oh, yeah? Well you don't know what you're talking about".

 

[PsyOps]

Your point seems to be that a theory is a theory and all should be treated equally.

My points are a) there are 2 definitions of "theory" and 2) my theory is supported by evidence.

What I'm asking is do you have evidence to support "your" theory as I have provided evidence for "my" theory. (quotes because neither theory originated with the person presenting it here)

Additionally, a lack of understanding of a specific topic does not in anyway imply a lack of intelligence or knowledge. Nobody knows everything and saying "I don't think you understand" does not in any way mean "I don't think you CAN understand". It means, "I don't think you understand the specific thing we are talking about right now" and in my case was accompanied with "here take a look at this and see if it helps" (the link I posted).

Are you serious? What else would a theory be than a THEORY?

If the evidence were revealing beyond doubt, it wouldn't be a theory now would it?

You didn't bother to state what my point is.

 

[McGinn77]

Wirelessly posted

Your point seems to be that a theory is a theory and all should be treated equally.

My points are a) there are 2 definitions of "theory" and 2) my theory is supported by evidence.

What I'm asking is do you have evidence to support "your" theory as I have provided evidence for "my" theory. (quotes because neither theory originated with the person presenting it here)

Additionally, a lack of understanding of a specific topic does not in anyway imply a lack of intelligence or knowledge. Nobody knows everything and saying "I don't think you understand" does not in any way mean "I don't think you CAN understand". It means, "I don't think you understand the specific thing we are talking about right now" and in my case was accompanied with "here take a look at this and see if it helps" (the link I posted).

Are you serious? What else would a theory be than a THEORY?

If the evidence were revealing beyond doubt, it wouldn't be a theory now would it?

You didn't bother to state what my point is.

The very first thing I said was what I thought was your point. And theory is defined several different ways. I can post the definitions and provide the one I'm using if you like.

 

[UNA]

Wirelessly posted

Why take it so personally and negatively? Some people know more than others on different things. :shrug:

I don't think you have to "know" your debating opponent to realize that they hold a wrong belief on something. If one makes an erroneous statement about a fundamental scientific tenet they should be advised about it... otherwise, everyone is wasting their time and all may as well pack their bags and move along.

Ummmm... So you feel it's necessary to remind the person you are debating with that your thought process is superior and therefore aim to marginalize that person rather than debate the issue at hand? I'm failing to see this beyond that. It's not personal for me; I'm simply stating that fact and that it serves no other pupose than to attempt to knock that person down a notch or two devoid of being able to refute their points. It's a tactic that has been used over and over and I see no purpose in it.

It boils down to "Oh, yeah? Well you don't know what you're talking about".

You're reading waaaaaaay to much into what I said. You've NEVER told someone you didn't think they understood something? EVER?

I had no 'hidden implication' in what I said and all I can do is apologize and clear up what I meant but you apparently want no part of that.