Atheists on the march in America

[postscript]

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>
If this was the case, then science still has more believable answers.

Like religion - conventional science supports only those theories that it deems fit to espouse. In the same way organized religion considers its members "the chosen", conventional science believes its membership the only fitting place for the elite, the reasonable, and the logical. Any views considered "unscientific" are completely ignored. Like the New York Times, science publishes "all the news that's fit to print," meaning all the news that fits into the officially-accepted view of reality. That news is already invisibly censored, and yet we're supposed to live our lives in accordance with that official definition of experience.

[Drew Smith]

postscript wrote:

The fact is nobody really knows where we came from. We have our theories - verified but inferential knowledge, grounded on unverifiable assumptions.

The only "unverifiable assumption" that grounds scientific theories is that the Universe is understandable.

If it isn't, then you're free to make up whatever magical explanation you want to make yourself happy. But don't expect others to buy into it as "truth".

postscript wrote:

It is entirely possible there was no Big Bang - that the universe has always existed - both expanding and contracting, recycling its energy.

Is it possible? Certainly. Does current evidence point to that possibility? Not that I know of.

[postscript]

Drew Smith wrote:

<quoted text>
The only "unverifiable assumption" that grounds scientific theories is that the Universe is understandable.

The same can be said of religion.

Drew Smith wrote:

<quoted text>
If it isn't, then you're free to make up whatever magical explanation you want to make yourself happy. But don't expect others to buy into it as "truth".

The same can be said of science.

Drew Smith wrote:

<quoted text>
Is it possible? Certainly. Does current evidence point to that possibility? Not that I know of.

When you believe this - you shut yourself off to equally plausible albeit "unscientific" explanations.

[Givemeliberty]

Is Jesus and his magical fish one if those plausible explanations?

:))

You half wits crack me up!

postscript wrote:

<quoted text>
The same can be said of religion.
<quoted text>
The same can be said of science.
<quoted text>
When you believe this - you shut yourself off to equally plausible albeit "unscientific" explanations.

[KittenKoder]

postscript wrote:

<quoted text>
You prove you operate on assumptions. I never said I was religious.

It's a logical and safe assumption, just because you want to lie and pretend to not be biased, you are demonstrating pure religious bias.

[KittenKoder]

postscript wrote:

<quoted text>
The same can be said of religion.
<quoted text>
The same can be said of science.
<quoted text>
When you believe this - you shut yourself off to equally plausible albeit "unscientific" explanations.

You have really bad logic here. First, magic is when you give a non-answer, one of the more common non-answers is "god dun it." It's magic because there is no natural explanation, it's a non-answer because it helps no one. Most religions are nothing more than snake oil, that's why they like their one non-answer to everything, it prevents the believer from actually learning anything, thus they are easier to be controlled and conned.

The irony is that science isn't what you think it is, it's a way of skeptically interrogating the universe, a method, a means to an end, but unlike religion and philosophy, science offers real, substantial, and beneficial answers. Science is close to finding a cure for cancer, what illnesses has religion ever cured? Name one.

[postscript]

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>
It's a logical and safe assumption, just because you want to lie and pretend to not be biased, you are demonstrating pure religious bias.

The point you seem to keep missing in your myopic ramblings is this: If the atheist won't allow priests to tell him how to live his life or how to interpret his experiences - why should he give that priviledge to science? Unless of course, he makes science his god.

[postscript]

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>You have really bad logic here. First, magic is when you give a non-answer, one of the more common non-answers is "god dun it." It's magic because there is no natural explanation, it's a non-answer because it helps no one.

Answers are only non-answers if you think of them as such, which is still no indication that I am religious.

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>Most religions are nothing more than snake oil, that's why they like their one non-answer to everything, it prevents the believer from actually learning anything, thus they are easier to be controlled and conned.

The ready-made symbols of both religion and science are helpful to many people, providing them with an orientation for understanding. If the arrangement becomes permanent, however, comprehension becomes programmed too rigidly. When you accept any dogma as true (whether religion or science) you allow yourself to become victimized by its dictates.

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>The irony is that science isn't what you think it is, it's a way of skeptically interrogating the universe, a method, a means to an end, but unlike religion and philosophy, science offers real, substantial, and beneficial answers. Science is close to finding a cure for cancer, what illnesses has religion ever cured? Name one.

The scientific method comes under fire regularly for its irreproducible results. Furthermore, science has been "close" to a cure for decades. In reality, the ultimate goal of preventing illness has largely eluded scientists. Science can at best ameliorate but it cannot cure cancer, AIDS, and other deadly diseases. After a quarter of a century of research and the expenditure of billions of dollars, the war on cancer has not produced a cure. Surrounded by technological affluence, we have fancy heart scans that can give us a nice picture of our clogged arteries, but science cannot prevent heart disease.

[Drew Smith]

The only "unverifiable assumption" that grounds scientific theories is that the Universe is understandable.

postscript wrote:

The same can be said of religion.

Nope, not the same. Remember all those people who say "God works in mysterious ways"? That's the problem with religion. You can make up anything you like, create any pantheon of deities that you like, invent any creation myth that you like, and one is just as good as another as predicting what will happen next (meaning, not good at all).

Nothing at all like science.

***

If it isn't, then you're free to make up whatever magical explanation you want to make yourself happy. But don't expect others to buy into it as "truth".

postscript wrote:

The same can be said of science.

Quite the contrary. If it can't make any predictions, then it isn't science. And if it makes predictions that don't pan out, then it has to be changed.

Never happens with religion. If the predictions don't pan out, the response is "Well, that's just how the god(s) want it to happen."

***

Is it possible? Certainly. Does current evidence point to that possibility? Not that I know of.

postscript wrote:

When you believe this - you shut yourself off to equally plausible albeit "unscientific" explanations.

"Unscientific" explanations don't actually *explain* anything. It always comes down to "Well, that's just how the god(s) want it to happen." It's all whim. No explanation. No justification.

And if they don't predict anything or aren't discarded when they predict incorrectly, then they aren't "equally plausible". They're fairy tales. And they belong in the fiction section of the bookstore or library.

[postscript]

Drew Smith wrote:

<quoted text>
Nope, not the same. Remember all those people who say "God works in mysterious ways"? That's the problem with religion. You can make up anything you like, create any pantheon of deities that you like, invent any creation myth that you like, and one is just as good as another as predicting what will happen next (meaning, not good at all).

Scientists do their fair share of speculating, only they call it theorizing, which somehow makes it more acceptable. Is it more satisfactory to say the "universe" works in mysterious ways - its wonders to behold? It certainly wouldn't be far from the truth since science doesn't know everything there is to know about the universe.

Religion has its original sin - science, its survival of the "fittest" and man, the predatory animal. Science's dogma is as limiting as religion's! Why is it that both religion and conventional science concentrate on man's inequity? Both teach that our impulses, emotions, and intuitions will betray us. They are tempters. The voices of the devil. Or the lingering dark rages roused in our infancies. Or random chemical imbalances; chaotic desires rising from our evolutionary past against which we must constantly exert all of our will and reason. If we allow it - we can become as much a victim of scientific dictums, as we can a victim of Rome's infallible fallacies!

Drew Smith wrote:

<quoted text>
Quite the contrary. If it can't make any predictions, then it isn't science. And if it makes predictions that don't pan out, then it has to be changed.

Meteorologists make predictions as a matter of course and are often wrong.

Drew Smith wrote:

<quoted text>
And if they don't predict anything or aren't discarded when they predict incorrectly, then they aren't "equally plausible". They're fairy tales. And they belong in the fiction section of the bookstore or library.

Were Plato's ideas true? For generations we lived as if they were, and we found ourselves dwarfed by perfect models of ourselves to which no human being could conform. Unless you are a student of philosophies and religions, you don't have the knowledge necessary to identify what is equally plausible and what is not.

[Lil Ticked]

Givemeliberty wrote:

Read it slowly half wit.
I am glad to get you lined out on the differences between Horus and Osiris :)
You are welcome
<quoted text>

So, what you are saying is that you are taking one form of the myth of Horus from one distinct region of Egypt and applying it to the whole of the Myth.. Why not look at the myth as a whole instead of picking only one small bit to suit your needs?

[Givemeliberty]

No what am I saying is that I am taking the oldest truest source material of the myth of the pre Jesus savior of all mankind. Let me use small words so you can understand. Hmmm in ancient times as the migration of... No no that will be beyond your ability.

Keep it so the lil IQ one can grasp it.

Ah ok. The reason I use the older source material vs the one used by our GREEK historian a whopping 2000 plus years later is because when the Greeks came around they incorporated the Egyptian gods along with their own. But they would radically alter the Egyptian gods combining them or radically changing their story. One could chalk this up to them misunderstanding the stories or them purposely trying to make the Egyptians look bad in comparison.

Whatever their motives were is irrelevant, the changes made almost always cast the Egyptian gods in a negative light, be it from mistranslation/misunderstandin g or purposely done.

Osiris born in heaven or the spirit world if you prefer to the earth god and sky goddess. Horus born on earth to a virgin.

There is actually a rather sweet, charming aspect to the Horus myth that sadly didn't get stolen for the Jesus myth. I am speaking of how Horus resurrects his own father and makes him greater than ever. The moral being how one's children can make them better and bring joy to them. How even after they die part of them like knowledge, art, laughter and so on will continue on through their children. Horus was not only the light of mankind but of his father's as well.

Lil Ticked wrote:

<quoted text>So, what you are saying is that you are taking one form of the myth of Horus from one distinct region of Egypt and applying it to the whole of the Myth.. Why not look at the myth as a whole instead of picking only one small bit to suit your needs?

[Lil Ticked]

Givemeliberty wrote:

No what am I saying is that I am taking the oldest truest source material of the myth of the pre Jesus savior of all mankind. Let me use small words so you can understand. Hmmm in ancient times as the migration of... No no that will be beyond your ability.
Keep it so the lil IQ one can grasp it.
Ah ok. The reason I use the older source material vs the one used by our GREEK historian a whopping 2000 plus years later is because when the Greeks came around they incorporated the Egyptian gods along with their own. But they would radically alter the Egyptian gods combining them or radically changing their story. One could chalk this up to them misunderstanding the stories or them purposely trying to make the Egyptians look bad in comparison.
Whatever their motives were is irrelevant, the changes made almost always cast the Egyptian gods in a negative light, be it from mistranslation/misunderstandin g or purposely done.
Osiris born in heaven or the spirit world if you prefer to the earth god and sky goddess. Horus born on earth to a virgin.
There is actually a rather sweet, charming aspect to the Horus myth that sadly didn't get stolen for the Jesus myth. I am speaking of how Horus resurrects his own father and makes him greater than ever. The moral being how one's children can make them better and bring joy to them. How even after they die part of them like knowledge, art, laughter and so on will continue on through their children. Horus was not only the light of mankind but of his father's as well.
<quoted text>

I am just wondering if you can have a conversation with out being a douche bag.. anyway...
I thought that the myth of a Solar Horus was older than the Osirian myth of Horus.

[Scrutiny]

postscript wrote:

<quoted text>

In reality, the ultimate goal of preventing illness has largely eluded scientists.

Diptherea
Hib Disease
Malaria
Measels
Pertussis
Pneumococcal disease
Polio
Tetanus
Neonatal Tetanus
Typhoid fever
Yellow fever
Smallpox
Chickenpox
Guinea-worm disease
Chagas
Onchocerciasis
Leprosy
Lymphatic filariasis

All completely curable and or preventable. Provided access to proper treatment.

We also have a vaccine that prevents most forms of cervical cancer as well.

So...yes. Science has cured a form of cancer.

I am sure there are more, thats just what I rounded up in 5 mins.

Modern Bacteriology has only been around since the 1940s

Not bad for 70 years.

Will not ask you how many diseases religion has cured. Being that a mental disorder can not be expected to cure physical diseases.

[KittenKoder]

postscript wrote:

<quoted text>
Answers are only non-answers if you think of them as such, which is still no indication that I am religious.
<quoted text>
The ready-made symbols of both religion and science are helpful to many people, providing them with an orientation for understanding. If the arrangement becomes permanent, however, comprehension becomes programmed too rigidly. When you accept any dogma as true (whether religion or science) you allow yourself to become victimized by its dictates.
<quoted text>
The scientific method comes under fire regularly for its irreproducible results. Furthermore, science has been "close" to a cure for decades. In reality, the ultimate goal of preventing illness has largely eluded scientists. Science can at best ameliorate but it cannot cure cancer, AIDS, and other deadly diseases. After a quarter of a century of research and the expenditure of billions of dollars, the war on cancer has not produced a cure. Surrounded by technological affluence, we have fancy heart scans that can give us a nice picture of our clogged arteries, but science cannot prevent heart disease.

You are an idiot, Psychology ... I mean Redneck ... erm wait ....

When you use the same canards that all the creatards use repeatedly you betray that you are nothing more than a christian attacking something you are too lazy to learn about. Since you know nothing of scientific understanding you are unfit and unqualified to even address it.

[Givemeliberty]

And the irony meter just exploded.

Anyways I feel great, I got to school you correcting your mistakes and have this enriched your life. Now your preacher won't like this nor will apologetics. They would rather latch onto versions that distance Jesus from previous sons of god. In fact even some Egyptian historians will do this because Christians keep pumping money into digs looking for that scroll that shows Moses freeing the Hebrews from the Egyptians lol. Good luck with that but do keep that money flowing :)

Lil Ticked wrote:

<quoted text>I am just wondering if you can have a conversation with out being a douche bag.. anyway...
I thought that the myth of a Solar Horus was older than the Osirian myth of Horus.

[-Skeptic-]

postscript wrote:

<quoted text>
The point you seem to keep missing in your myopic ramblings is this: If the atheist won't allow priests to tell him how to live his life or how to interpret his experiences - why should he give that priviledge to science? Unless of course, he makes science his god.

You're full of sh*t. Science is based on observable, repeatably testable evidence while religion is based on....

...bullf8cking sh*t and f*ck all.

Universal fact. Now go back to your cult and tell them you failed to convince anyone that science is on equal par with the written hallucinations of uneducated liars.

[-Skeptic-]

postscript wrote:

<quoted text>
Were Plato's ideas true? For generations we lived as if they were, and we found ourselves dwarfed by perfect models of ourselves to which no human being could conform. Unless you are a student of philosophies and religions, you don't have the knowledge necessary to identify what is equally plausible and what is not.

You don't need to know everything to know something.

You thiests always bring up philosophy because you think because philosophy or "questions without answers" exist, it should follow that "answers which cannot be questioned" should exist.(religion)

Which is utter baseless bullsh*t.

[-Skeptic-]

It's as simple as it has always been for centuries, postscript - prove the god you lie about all day long, or f*ck off and stop lying.

Its the stop lying part that you deluded people cling to, because you can't bear to see the truth.

[postscript]

Google the difference between ameliorate and cure.

None of the diseases you listed have been vanquished from the face of the earth. Better hygiene and sanitation has done more to
amerliorate these diseases than vaccinations.

"You cannot immunize sick children, malnourished children, and expect to get away with it. You'll kill far more children than would have died from natural infection."--Dr Kalokerinos (International Vaccine Newsletter June 1995)

Scrutiny wrote:

<quoted text>We also have a vaccine that prevents most forms of cervical cancer as well.

This is a common misconception. The vaccine seems to work in some cases but only if the individual has not been exposed to HPV. The flu vaccine doesn't work either and for the same reason vaccinations don't cure diseases. Viruses mutate. You've heard of super bugs?

http://chemistry.about.com/cs/howthingswork/a...

There is a difference between a virus produced in a laboratory and one that inhabits the body - a difference recognized by the body but not laboratory instruments. The body produces antibodies, and sets up natural immunization against the innoculation and not the disease itself.