The Wow I Can't Believe That News Story Thread

[Frownland]

Originally Posted by MicShazam

If you know what I'm saying.

I know. It's getting old.

Originally Posted by MicShazam

I think humans are just wired to try and make order in the world around them. Theism, conspiracytheorism, an impulse to collect stamps and sort them chronologically: It all comes from largely the same impulse. So does trying to push our human perspective down over the universe. If we think like this then, surely, so must the universe. We won't accept it just being an unexplainable weird thing that just is. I think it's very possible that reality cannot be explained.

I do think that people desire understanding of their world to the degree that they can live comfortably in it and that theism is absolutely used to bridge that gap for a lot of the unpredictable elements of life.

[Chula Vista]

Originally Posted by Frownland

I know. It's getting old.

Pathetic.

[Frownland]

Sure man, sure.

[DwnWthVwls]

Originally Posted by Chula Vista

Poor, poor, frown boy. Guess I chapped your ass.

Ja, guess you just don't understand the word atheist, in all of its uses mate. Your world view on stuff like this is not the be all/end all. Stop glamming yourself.



Pretentious comeback in 5... 4... 3... 2...

Curious if you know what things like burden of proof and null hypothesis mean or how logic works.

[OccultHawk]

Originally Posted by DwnWthVwls

Curious if you know what things like burden of proof and null hypothesis mean or how logic works.

You need to brush up on your Spanish. You obviously don’t know what “adios” means.

[DwnWthVwls]

Im on the train now. Im bored

[OccultHawk]

Originally Posted by elphenor

science answers "we don't know yet" when you go back far enough

Small qualifier

“We don’t know” is the cornerstone of all good science. Humility.

Pop scientists have taken to making fantastical unsubstantiated claims over the past few years. And the media (like Vice) twist good research into huge exaggerations like we’re on the cusp of stopping cancer or whatever.

And also there’s the problem of scientists having to exaggerate their progress to keep funding.

The public seems to think that ruling out an hypothesis is a failure instead of understanding that it's actually new information on a long journey. You’ll never get famous testing ideas that don’t work but it’s a fundamental part of the process.

Capitalism discourages peer review and the sharing of knowledge which is disastrous for progress.

[Lucem Ferre]

Originally Posted by elphenor

to self-identify sure

but if you imagine an alternate universe where nobody imagined deities, everyone would be atheists, no?

Well in that alternative universe neither of those terms would exist so the concepts would be completely strange and foreign to them. There would technically be no atheists because there was no need or the term in the first place. Which, I guess, would be dragging this conversation into a more abstract phenomenology territory. But to people like us who have been introduced to these ideas then they would be atheists who can't really reject an idea that they've never been introduced to. But, as already pointed out by Frownland thus making your question even more redundant than when Fluffy asked the same thing, people like Chula who are self identified atheists that are aware of the concept of god are rejecting the concept of God.

Definition of reject
transitive verb
1 a : to refuse to accept, consider, submit to, take for some purpose, or use rejected the suggestion reject a manuscript
b : to refuse to hear, receive, or admit : rebuff, repel parents who reject their children
c : to refuse as lover or spouse
2 obsolete : to cast off
3 : throw back, repulse
4 : to spew out
5 : to subject to immunological rejection

[OccultHawk]

Are babies atheists?

[Lucem Ferre]

Originally Posted by OccultHawk

Are babies atheists?

According to our perceptions guided by our languages, yes, because babies haven't had the chance to become introduced to the idea to believe in. The idea is far beyond their perception in the first place.

I'm guessing this is the 3rd and even more redundant attempt at throwing in a loophole that Frownland already addressed a few pages back before anybody even brought it up. Makes me wonder if anybody actually reads responses to have a constructive discussion or you just come here to scream a point of view at the screen.