20+ Questions for Theists
Thinking

Poole, UK

#271 Jul 1, 2014
Wrong.

Dark Energy and Dark Matter are attempts to be consistent with exisiting observations, whereas religion is just any old bollocks that isn't required to fit observations of the real world.
Andre wrote:
<quoted text>...Similarly theoretical constructs like dark matter and dark energy had to be “invented” to try and explain matters inconsistent with existing theories and observations....

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#272 Jul 3, 2014
Andre wrote:
<quoted text>This may come as a surprise to you
"Menstrual blood can be an irritant for some people, and skin irritation could increase susceptibility to various STD infections."
as well as
"A woman's risk of sexually transmitted disease and infection is higher than normal during this time because the cervix opens to allow blood to pass through. Unfortunately, this creates the perfect pathway for bacteria to travel deep inside the pelvic cavity. A woman is also more likely to pass on blood-borne diseases like HIV and hepatitis "
I am sure if it is a specific area of interest to you, you will find other pieces of relevant information. It did not take me too long to find this.
Blood irritates some people? Maybe it's an allergy?

But back to the irritation itself. Blood can irritate? Well, so can snot. And from my perspective guys seem to be snottier than women, and children even snottier than men. So should we sit aside separate seating areas for people with snotty noses? Or maybe for all people with noses simply because they could become snotty?

What planet do you live on, where the females are leaking blood onto every surface? You of course have never frequented a public dining spot, or a doctors office, you've never sat down on a bus, nor ridden in a taxi either? Right, because ... who knows women just might leak there too.
Do you think taxi companies should have a car or two set aside for the oh so sloppy and leaky females that live on your planet? You wouldn't by chance be one of those leaky women?

If you ever visit planet earth, you may be surprised to find that not every public seating area is covered with menstrual blood, in fact I'd say that with almost certainty, none of them are, and never have been. It's because the women of earth have some knowledge as to how to avoid that particular scenario.
Thinking

Poole, UK

#273 Jul 4, 2014
It's as though scripture was written by men who couldn't get near women.
Which is why scripture is often misogynistic.
Reason Personified wrote:
<quoted text>Blood irritates some people? Maybe it's an allergy?
But back to the irritation itself. Blood can irritate? Well, so can snot. And from my perspective guys seem to be snottier than women, and children even snottier than men. So should we sit aside separate seating areas for people with snotty noses? Or maybe for all people with noses simply because they could become snotty?
What planet do you live on, where the females are leaking blood onto every surface? You of course have never frequented a public dining spot, or a doctors office, you've never sat down on a bus, nor ridden in a taxi either? Right, because ... who knows women just might leak there too.
Do you think taxi companies should have a car or two set aside for the oh so sloppy and leaky females that live on your planet? You wouldn't by chance be one of those leaky women?
If you ever visit planet earth, you may be surprised to find that not every public seating area is covered with menstrual blood, in fact I'd say that with almost certainty, none of them are, and never have been. It's because the women of earth have some knowledge as to how to avoid that particular scenario.

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#274 Jul 4, 2014
Thinking wrote:
It's as though scripture was written by men who couldn't get near women.
Which is why scripture is often misogynistic.
<quoted text>
But scripture nor blood is not why men were afraid. All it took was seeing one woman climax and FGM became standard practice.
Thinking

Poole, UK

#275 Jul 4, 2014
I saw a depressing article on BBC last night where both the young men and young women were opposing FGM at a village but their elderly women were trying to enforce it onto the young women. Surely we would all want kids to have a better life, not copy the bad things in ours.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-281403...
Reason Personified wrote:
<quoted text>But scripture nor blood is not why men were afraid. All it took was seeing one woman climax and FGM became standard practice.
Patrick

United States

#276 Jul 4, 2014
Reason Personified wrote:
<quoted text>Blood irritates some people? Maybe it's an allergy?
But back to the irritation itself. Blood can irritate? Well, so can snot. And from my perspective guys seem to be snottier than women, and children even snottier than men. So should we sit aside separate seating areas for people with snotty noses? Or maybe for all people with noses simply because they could become snotty?
What planet do you live on, where the females are leaking blood onto every surface? You of course have never frequented a public dining spot, or a doctors office, you've never sat down on a bus, nor ridden in a taxi either? Right, because ... who knows women just might leak there too.
Do you think taxi companies should have a car or two set aside for the oh so sloppy and leaky females that live on your planet? You wouldn't by chance be one of those leaky women?
If you ever visit planet earth, you may be surprised to find that not every public seating area is covered with menstrual blood, in fact I'd say that with almost certainty, none of them are, and never have been. It's because the women of earth have some knowledge as to how to avoid that particular scenario.
Are you on drugs or simply nuts?
Patrick

United States

#277 Jul 4, 2014
Reason Personified wrote:
<quoted text>But scripture nor blood is not why men were afraid. All it took was seeing one woman climax and FGM became standard practice.
OK- Lets vote for nuts.
You must have a rather dull life to be posting tripe?
Thinking

Poole, UK

#278 Jul 5, 2014
Reason Personified was posting in response to a religitard oke called Andre that was trying to defend the OT's prejudice against menstruating women.

Context.
Patrick wrote:
<quoted text>
OK- Lets vote for nuts.
You must have a rather dull life to be posting tripe?

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#279 Jul 5, 2014
Thinking wrote:
I saw a depressing article on BBC last night where both the young men and young women were opposing FGM at a village but their elderly women were trying to enforce it onto the young women. Surely we would all want kids to have a better life, not copy the bad things in ours.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-281403...
<quoted text>
These women have spent their lifetimes being told that what they are naturally is filthy, and to cleanse themselves they must have these dirty parts removed. They see as the only way their daughters can become clean. Somehow they never see that Allah made a serious design mistake, and therefore is a flawed god.
The cruelest part of the practice, to my way of thinking is that they sometimes wait until a girl is anywhere from 6 to 12 years old, and sometimes even older before they butcher her body, that way she never forgets that pain, and she more than likely knows the pleasure that can be derived from clitoral stimulation, and really knows what has been stolen from her.

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#280 Jul 5, 2014
Patrick wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you on drugs or simply nuts?
Do you too have a set of slug-nasty religious beliefs that need be slathered with the same kind of filth they were born from? If so, I can and will provide, and will do so from your very own holy books.
Reading the post which the response was directed at, can keep you from looking too clueless. Maybe you should try it sometime Andre.

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#281 Jul 5, 2014
Patrick wrote:
<quoted text>
OK- Lets vote for nuts.
You must have a rather dull life to be posting tripe?
Clearly you have no concept of how an imagination actually works. But then that's ok, I have no idea of what boredom is, I can't even imagine such a thing, what with the literally billions of things that I might occupy my time with. Topix is merely a minute or two here and there which I in pleasure, occasionally waste.

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#282 Jul 5, 2014
Thinking wrote:
Reason Personified was posting in response to a religitard oke called Andre that was trying to defend the OT's prejudice against menstruating women.
Context.
<quoted text>
He knew that. Anybody but Andre's sock would have "seen" that there was a bit of insanity in the same posting, that I was responding to. He had no response, so he pulled on a sock, and played like the first half of that post (which was clearly separate from the rest of the page) didn't contain his idiocy. He also hasn't yet learned to

He must be new at this, because the telltale sign is the number of disapproving judgits versus the number of posters.
Patrick

United States

#283 Jul 5, 2014
Reason Personified wrote:
<quoted text>He knew that. Anybody but Andre's sock would have "seen" that there was a bit of insanity in the same posting, that I was responding to. He had no response, so he pulled on a sock, and played like the first half of that post (which was clearly separate from the rest of the page) didn't contain his idiocy. He also hasn't yet learned to
He must be new at this, because the telltale sign is the number of disapproving judgits versus the number of posters.
I still vote for Reason Personified being on drugs and/or a member of a weird cult trying to be amusing. He/she posts amusing drivel
Andre

Johannesburg, South Africa

#284 Jul 6, 2014
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
I see you aren't familiar with how scientists write and speak.
In science, we don't prove anything. We build evidence to support hypotheses. Do you know what a hypothesis is? It's a stated relationship between two or more variables that can be tested.
So, we take the hypothesis as stated in the Bible "The Jews migrated into the Jordan River" and test it by digging up the area. Oh, no Jews found in Egypt at all. Oh, no Jews found outside of the Jordan river at all. Ok, so the Biblical hypothesis is not supported.
Therefore we have to look at what's called the "null hypothesis," which is the hypothesis that is supported if your original one fails. The null hypothesis in this case is that the Jews did not migrate in, but in fact are indigenous to the area.
Wow, ok, so more digging. Huh. All evidence thus far demonstrates that the Jews were, in fact, indigenous to the area. They didn't migrate in, but made that myth up to build cultural identity.
The funny thing is that the Jewish state of Israel supports the contemporary archaeological views here - and disregards the stories in the Bible. Exodus did not happen - there's not a shred of evidence to support it.
I am glad you call it hypotheses as these are not statements of fact but as you explained quite well. This would mean that if evidence is found, the hypotheses is rejected. Maybe similar to the hypotheses that life came from non-living matter. No evidence yet. According to your argument then, you have to accept that it did not happen.

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#285 Jul 6, 2014
Patrick wrote:
<quoted text>
I still vote for Reason Personified being on drugs and/or a member of a weird cult trying to be amusing. He/she posts amusing drivel
You are still nowhere near an actual insult. To insult me, you'd have to come up with something I have some inclination towards and I just might be sensitive about that inclination. Keep trying you could be the first. LOL!
You might oughta pull out your "A" game, if you have one that is.

BTW: Posters who are using drugs and posters who are members of weird cults(think Christain) both have very easily identifiable methods of getting their messages across. You clearly are not familiar with either's methodology. I do have certain leanings, can you guess what they are?
Andre

Johannesburg, South Africa

#286 Jul 6, 2014
Thinking wrote:
Wrong.
Dark Energy and Dark Matter are attempts to be consistent with exisiting observations, whereas religion is just any old bollocks that isn't required to fit observations of the real world.
<quoted text>
This is not quite correct. It seems dark energy and dark matter are mere theoretical constructs that aims to explain inconsistencies in gravitation (too little matter in universe). The Christian religion is a belief system and an acceptance of Who is our Creator, who is in final control, about who we are, why we are here, etc, It does not exclude application of our intellectual faculties, hence a fair number of some of the greatest scientists were/are believers.
The real world is what? What you understand it to be? If two chaps have different beliefs about the "real" world, what is the "real" world then?
If the Christian faith is bollocks, then one would expect all intelligent people to reject it? As previously suggested, the later discoveries in science seem to support rather than disprove the Bible. The following extract may be of interest: Even more impressive, the geneticists concluded that every person on Earth right now can trace his or her lineage back to a single common female ancestor who lived around 200,000 years ago.( http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/evoluti... ). Of course there are arguments against it, but it shows that the possibility of "Eve" is not ruled out. So instead of later discoveries disproving the Biblical account, it supports the Bible.

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#287 Jul 6, 2014
Andre wrote:
<quoted text>I am glad you call it hypotheses as these are not statements of fact but as you explained quite well. This would mean that if evidence is found, the hypotheses is rejected. Maybe similar to the hypotheses that life came from non-living matter. No evidence yet. According to your argument then, you have to accept that it did not happen.
The short answer is "yes" our science can be rejected - and is, when we find evidence that contradicts our hypotheses. The longer answer is that each scientific discipline has what's called a "theoretical framework" - an explanatory model for the phenomena it studies. All hypotheses are drawn from this theoretical framework.

For example, the theoretical framework for all biological sciences is the theory of evolution. Biological hypotheses are drawn from this theory, but don't always test the main theory. For example, if you're testing a new drug, you don't have to appeal to the framework theory. However, if we want to interpret the drug's response, we do so vis a vis the framework theory.

If you draw up a hypothesis that tests the main theory - let's say we hypothesize that gene A could not have arisen by evolution, but could only have been created - and we found out that, yes, gene A must be a created thing - then we'd have to reject the framework theory (assuming that we didn't make any mistakes or that gene A isn't a special case - like, say, if humans had created it and released it into the wild or something).

That said, you're incorrect about the abiogenesis hypothesis. It has a lot of evidence supporting it - and no contradictory evidence thus far. However, the exact mechanisms aren't worked out yet. Each of those takes on its own hypothesis testing. They are subsequently rejected or accepted. So at this point, the hypothesis is largely supported with the exact mechanisms remaining unknown and not unknowable.

For example, let's say I was designing a hypothesis to test some specific amino acid. My hypothesis would be something like "lysine is produced under conditions X" and then I'd see if I can do that. If I can't, I reject that hypothesis.

Let's say that we exhaust every single hypothesis we can (no idea how many that would be - I don't work in this field of science) and then some super clever person comes along and figures out a "design" hypothesis that works - then we could toss out the abiogenesis hypothesis and start working under a design one.

The problem with design hypotheses is that they are not testable, nor disprovable. Take the hypothesis "Thor Created life." How do you test that? You can't. It's also indistinguishable from "The Old Man Created humans from mud" and "God Created the world in 6 days" and "My pencil Created the universe 5 minutes ago." All these statements above are not, and cannot be turned into, hypotheses b/c they are not testable, nor disprovable.

It's not a strength to be non-disprovable, it's a weakness. Such statements cannot produce new knowledge - only bizarre claims.

Now you're welcome to believe in whatever claim you want to. Let's see you turn that claim into something interesting - something efficacious, capable of producing new technology and new knowledge - or you have nothing.

Buck Crick

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#288 Jul 6, 2014
Patrick wrote:
<quoted text>
I still vote for Reason Personified being on drugs and/or a member of a weird cult trying to be amusing. He/she posts amusing drivel
He prefers to be called RaisinPenisFried.
Patrick

United States

#289 Jul 6, 2014
Science describes accurately the material word.
Metaphysical ideas can not be proved.
Thus each person decides for himself or herself
Philosophical issue tied to our common mortality.

Trolls seem upset that their ideas are no accepted

“A sentient umbrella speaks”

Since: Mar 11

Some stable somewhere

#290 Jul 6, 2014
Patrick wrote:
Science describes accurately the material word.
Kinda.
Metaphysical ideas can not be proved.
Totally.
Thus each person decides for himself or herself
Hopefully, using evidence based reasoning.
Philosophical issue tied to our common mortality.
Sometimes...but...who's philosophy?
Trolls seem upset that their ideas are no accepted
Ah. Buck.

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 "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 32 min eggosaurus 94,144
a prayer of salvation for those who are willing (Oct '17) 1 hr blacklagoon 3 138
News Egyptian Parliament considers outlawing atheism May 15 dollarsbill 5
Stephen Hawking, now a believer May 8 superwilly 20
The atheists trick May 8 Eagle 12 - 3
News The Anti-Christian Movement May 7 blacklagoon 3 25
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... (Jun '17) May 5 Eagle 12 - 5,971