Atheism and cowardice

Atheism and cowardice

There are 12674 comments on the Conservapedia story from Nov 18, 2011, titled Atheism and cowardice. In it, Conservapedia reports that:

Have any of the New Atheists toured [[Islam]]ic countries giving lectures in which they condemn [[Allah]], [[Muhammad]], Islam, or Muslims? Have any of them debated Muslims in Islamic countries? Have any of them been interviewed on Al Jazeera? Have any of them written entire books in which they condemn Allah, Muhammad, Islam, or Muslims? Have they ... (more)

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Conservapedia.

Seeker

Lowell, MA

#9494 Jun 17, 2013
Thinking wrote:
I did take quite a lot of physics with my mathematics degree. It's worth the effort.
Still saw no evidence for god though.
Everything we have discovered so far has turned out to be "not magic".
<quoted text>
Heisenberg was not trying to prove the existence of God as his statement itself says the essence of the universe is beyond the conceptualizing mind and proof is something within the conceptualize mind. It is a concept of the mind. That's not to say we can't learn more and more about the universe but he seems to suggest we will never get to the essence itself. That appears to be what his statement means. And my understanding of what he is trying to say is the following:

Before we can have any concepts for or understanding of anything, we need a comparative or relative context. But since existence or life (whatever word you want to choose) is the ultimate context that allows for contexts themselves, then one would have to put the ultimate context within itself, which would appear to be logically or even conceptually impossible or at least logically faulty. To FULLY understand anything, one would have to be inside of what we are trying to understand, but also observe it from outside of it as well, because part of having a complete understanding of something requires that one see or observe it in a detached view outside of the thing itself. So our understanding of everything can only come from our context within life or existence itself, not from observing it from the outside. I think this was probably the conclusion that he arrived at.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#9495 Jun 17, 2013
The whole idea of completely understanding the essence of life or existence itself is a tremendous mind f*ck that would appear to be unsolvable, no matter how much science we learn. We can always learn more and more about life or the universe or existence (whatever word you choose), but to understand the essence itself appears to be something that is beyond the conceptualizing mind itself. You can't use concepts to understand the origin of concepts themselves.
Thinking

Kingston Upon Thames, UK

#9496 Jun 17, 2013
I've never seen this proven.
Seeker wrote:
You can't use concepts to understand the origin of concepts themselves.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#9497 Jun 17, 2013
Thinking wrote:
I've never seen this proven.
<quoted text>
It has to do with logic or Philosophy postulates. How can you fully know about something unless you can first observe it from a perspective that is outside of it? You can live inside of a ball, but how do you know the color of it's outside unless you can be independent of that ball and observe it's outside?
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#9498 Jun 17, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
It has to do with logic or Philosophy postulates. How can you fully know about something unless you can first observe it from a perspective that is outside of it? You can live inside of a ball, but how do you know the color of it's outside unless you can be independent of that ball and observe it's outside?
So this post get marked with "disagree". Fine, fair enough. So perhaps someone can tell me how one can know the color of the outside of a ball without being outside of it and independent of it. If someone can answer that, then the judgement of "disagree" is more than fair and correct. I'm sorry if this frustrates people because we always want the security of "knowing" or thinking that we can "know". It frustrated me as well when I first learned it. Maybe it still even does, but it is what it is.
Thinking

Kingston Upon Thames, UK

#9499 Jun 17, 2013
Philosophy can be just a talking shop, especially for those that would rather give up than pursue a serious science education.

Meanwhile, back in testable reality, look how much Penzias and Wilson discovered about cosmology from within.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwav...
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
It has to do with logic or Philosophy postulates. How can you fully know about something unless you can first observe it from a perspective that is outside of it? You can live inside of a ball, but how do you know the color of it's outside unless you can be independent of that ball and observe it's outside?
Thinking

Kingston Upon Thames, UK

#9500 Jun 17, 2013
We do not currently have answers for everything, that's why science is important.
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
So this post get marked with "disagree". Fine, fair enough. So perhaps someone can tell me how one can know the color of the outside of a ball without being outside of it and independent of it. If someone can answer that, then the judgement of "disagree" is more than fair and correct. I'm sorry if this frustrates people because we always want the security of "knowing" or thinking that we can "know". It frustrated me as well when I first learned it. Maybe it still even does, but it is what it is.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#9502 Jun 17, 2013
Thinking wrote:
Philosophy can be just a talking shop, especially for those that would rather give up than pursue a serious science education.
Meanwhile, back in testable reality, look how much Penzias and Wilson discovered about cosmology from within.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwav...
<quoted text>
So what percentage of everything that there is to know do we know? I never said the pursuit of science was not a good idea at all. But I do contend that there are some things that will simply never fit into the box of our concepts or the conceptualizing mind. And I believe that Heisenberg came to the same conclusion. To assume that everything in the universe is conceivable seems a bit arrogant to me.

And sometimes, knowing can be misleading. If I remember correctly, and correct me if I'm wrong, people used Kepler's principles for orbiting planets to figure out how to get a satellite to orbit. So his principles were proven correct. We tested them and they worked. But just because it worked, were the principles really correct or are there different reasons that planets orbit that Einstein came up with?
Thinking

Kingston Upon Thames, UK

#9503 Jun 17, 2013
You can do most rocketry using Newton's Laws. Why don't I believe that Heisenberg's opinion on knowledge is final?

For the same reason that Newton's laws when applied to the planetary motion of Mercury needed to be tweaked by Einstein to hold true, and will need no doubt need to be tweaked again when we learn yet more about how the universe behaves.
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
But I do contend that there are some things that will simply never fit into the box of our concepts or the conceptualizing mind. And I believe that Heisenberg came to the same conclusion. To assume that everything in the universe is conceivable seems a bit arrogant to me.
And sometimes, knowing can be misleading. If I remember correctly, and correct me if I'm wrong, people used Kepler's principles for orbiting planets to figure out how to get a satellite to orbit. So his principles were proven correct. We tested them and they worked. But just because it worked, were the principles really correct or are there different reasons that planets orbit that Einstein came up with?
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#9504 Jun 17, 2013
Thinking wrote:
You can do most rocketry using Newton's Laws. Why don't I believe that Heisenberg's opinion on knowledge is final?
For the same reason that Newton's laws when applied to the planetary motion of Mercury needed to be tweaked by Einstein to hold true, and will need no doubt need to be tweaked again when we learn yet more about how the universe behaves.
<quoted text>
So what percentage of all there is to know do we know? How close are we? Like I said, I like science and think it should continue, but you can never fully understand anything unless you can step outside of it and detach from it and observe it. All of the things that science learns are about things that we can observe by observing it from the outside of whatever we are observing. But both we, and the things we observe outside of ourselves are all containing within the Universe itself.
Thinking

Kingston Upon Thames, UK

#9505 Jun 17, 2013
I really can't say. Very, very little I would guess. But I also know that new discoveries are coming in at a far faster rate than in previous centuries.
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
So what percentage of all there is to know do we know? How close are we? Like I said, I like science and think it should continue, but you can never fully understand anything unless you can step outside of it and detach from it and observe it. All of the things that science learns are about things that we can observe by observing it from the outside of whatever we are observing. But both we, and the things we observe outside of ourselves are all containing within the Universe itself.
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#9506 Jun 17, 2013
Thinking wrote:
I really can't say. Very, very little I would guess. But I also know that new discoveries are coming in at a far faster rate than in previous centuries.
<quoted text>
Well that's a very reasonable response. Go science, because it's the best tool that we have at our disposal. Perhaps the only one that we have at our disposal, at least in terms of logic or the limitations of our minds. But what else can we do? We can only do what we are capable of doing.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#9507 Jun 17, 2013
LBer wrote:
I see the title of this forum as indicating a negative look at atheism, thus a logical place for a religious person to add their two cents...but, if I have interpreted that title wrong (I haven't read much on this forum) wouldn't you want divergent views to debate, or atleast provide food for thought?
BTW - gotta love that Oklahoma license plate with the Apache shooting the arrow. I doubt your average minister would have an issue, he would just appreciate the artistry.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/06/16/methodis...
That has come up. Certain Genuine Christholes™ are against it, as they claim it's "religious" and "pagan".

As a result? I'm delighted to have it on my car-- it rubs their ugly busibody noses in the fact that they are **not** the only belief in town.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#9508 Jun 17, 2013
number four wrote:
<quoted text>...you forget how children think......A ; Shia' Muslim ... Sunni Muslim Jihad , a climate kerfuffle , a financial kerfuffle ....MOM AND DAD STILL LOVE EACH OTHER ...THE WORLD IS ....FINE....!!
triple stamp it ...when mom and dad ..love each other ..there are "NO" problems ....
Bullshit. 100% and total bullshit.

Not all kids are "fine"-- even with two loving parents.

KIDS ARE JUST NOT THAT SIMPLE.

Are you seriously this daft? Or did you get yourself hit in the head one too many times?

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#9509 Jun 17, 2013
number four wrote:
<quoted text>..life is complicated ....of course if there 'really' was a God , He would leave some sort of manual or something ..........well...I guess we'll just never know ...
How many times has the "manual" for Windows been updated, since it was released back in 1995?

Do you have ***any** idea?

Something on the order 100's of times **or****more**....!

And that was just for some old crappy computer operating system...

....!!!

How many times, has your god come down to earth (in one guise or another) to UPDATE THE BIBLE?

....what's that? I can't hear you.... NONE?

NONE AT ALL??????

Wow.....

... almost as if he wasn't really there at all........

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#9510 Jun 17, 2013
number four wrote:
<quoted text>..savin' souls ...OR...as you claim giving them an education ....
If 'you' don't like it ...don't reads it ....you dig ..???
You have some FACTS that demonstrate this .. "soul" thingy?

No?

I have more than sufficient proof that they DO NOT exist.

Want to hear about it?

First of all, to be useful, a soul **must** preserve memories of the person it belongs to.

Without memory preservation? There is zero point to it-- at all.

Who would care, if a mindless-- memory-less NO PERSONALITY thing exists after we die....!!

The **essential** part that is YOU will be **GONE**(memories).

So, in order for anyone to CARE about this soul, it MUST preserve memories, in order to preserve personality.

Is this the case?

Nope.

Proof?

Alzheimer's.... I'll leave the details for you to puzzle out.

(unless you ask nicely... they are pretty obvious...)
Seeker

Lowell, MA

#9511 Jun 17, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
That has come up. Certain Genuine Christholes™ are against it, as they claim it's "religious" and "pagan".
As a result? I'm delighted to have it on my car-- it rubs their ugly busibody noses in the fact that they are **not** the only belief in town.
Well good for you. You sure got THEM back, didn't you?

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#9512 Jun 17, 2013
number four wrote:
<quoted text>...How much 'older'..We should figure out 'exactly' when the Creator first showed up on the scene ....I'm thinking bout' probably .....,what a decade or two..later ???...that ,sound right to you ..??
Well, let's see... the earth, according to the best scientists on earth, is in excess of 4.something billion years old.

The **first** sign of religion, as far as we know, dates to no earlier than about 10,000 years back.

That is... what? more than 4 billion years BEFORE showing up?

Wow....

....!!!

Talk about a DEAD-BEAT-DAD!

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#9513 Jun 17, 2013
Seeker wrote:
<quoted text>
Individual words.
Says you. You are a known liar, so....
Seeker wrote:
Thanks for telling us of your real, and angry intentions.
Projection on your part-- your anger is showing, here.
Seeker wrote:
In the internet world, one or two words in caps means emphasis. One or two sentences mean shouting. If you don't mean to give that appearance, then don't do it.
Says you. I'm so happy to have met you-- the self-proclaimed KING OF ALL THE INTERNETS, now.

Ego, much?

<laughing out loud, now>

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#9514 Jun 17, 2013
atheism is evil wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm here because I'm doing research on the hatred of atheists.
So, you hate atheists so very much, you come here to rail and threaten them with literal torture?

Wow.

You **are** sick.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... (Jun '17) 11 min Give it up already 3,206
News The war on Christmas (Dec '10) 40 min Eagle 12 - 4,954
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 51 min Eagle 12 - 4,000
hell is a real place. so.. ahtiesm is a faux li... 11 hr Eagle 12 - 15
High School Atheism 13 hr blacklagoon 3 39
what science will NEVER be able to prove 14 hr blacklagoon 3 61
News Tampa Teacher @LoraJane Hates Christians, Promo... (May '17) 19 hr Frindly 1,191
More from around the web