17-Question test to see if your beliefs are logically defensible

Watermark said:
I do not lean on faith, I lean on evidence.
Click to expand...

And the faith you put in that evidence it what gives credence to it. Think about it. For thousands of years it was a fact that our sun revolved around the Earth. But now our current evidence says otherwise. What will happen in the next thousand years to all your evidence in a lack of god?
 
CaptBillyTheKid said:
And the faith you put in that evidence it what gives credence to it. Think about it. For thousands of years it was a fact that our sun revolved around the Earth. But now our current evidence says otherwise.
Click to expand...

For thousands of years people believed that the sun revolved around the earth without evidence. For thousands of years people have believed in god without evidence.

CaptBillyTheKid said:
What will happen in the next thousand years to all your evidence in a lack of god?
Click to expand...

There is no evidence for a lack of god.
 
Watermark said:
For thousands of years people believed that the sun revolved around the earth without evidence. For thousands of years people have believed in god without evidence.
Click to expand...
No, just all evidence and logical measure pointed to their conclusion. Change is as much a part of science and logic and reasoning as it is anything else. Why 60 years ago to think that there were parts of matter smaller than an atom was lunacy. But low and behold, all the world was wrong.

Everything we know is built on very specific models with an utterly limited pool of data, based solely on our own ability to perceive.
 
CaptBillyTheKid said:
No, just all evidence and logical measure pointed to their conclusion. Change is as much a part of science and logic and reasoning as it is anything else. Why 60 years ago to think that there were parts of matter smaller than an atom was lunacy. But low and behold, all the world was wrong.

Everything we know is built on very specific models with an utterly limited pool of data, based solely on our own ability to perceive.
Click to expand...

Yes. And there's no reason to pollute that already limited pool of data. There's no reason to add imaginary perceptions to our already limited perceptions.
 
CaptBillyTheKid said:
No, just all evidence and logical measure pointed to their conclusion.
Click to expand...

What evidence pointed to a sun that revolves around the earth more than an earth the revolves around the sun? What would the sun have looked like if it had looked like the earth was revolving around the sun?

There were actual mathematical models predicting the the sun was much larger than the earth back in ancient times. The ancients chose to ignore the evidence because their philosophical and religious beliefs held that the universe should be earth and human centered.
 
And what are you trying to say here? Is the solution to having a limited amount of data to just make shit up? No, you get more data, you get more evidence, you construct better models. Our perceptions are limited but they're all we have. You don't go "this is unexplainable, let's make shit up to fill in the gap."

The evidence constantly changes, things are constantly being proven wrong, and science evolves to make up for that. Religion doesn't. It holds onto what it believes forever. And there is something inherently disturbing, depressing, and anti-human about that.

Thank god there are so many things out there waiting to be known! What a boring, dull existence it would be if god really did existence.
 
I got the third place prize.

I think it liked me for saying that atheism is a rational conclusion and that we should be able to discount the Lochness Monster despite lack of evidence, but it hated me for calling bullshit on its suffering questions by saying that there is not necessarily anything special about someone dying a horrible death, because it thinks religion is all about suffering. I hate suffering - it hurts.
 
Last edited:
Watermark said:
And what are you trying to say here? Is the solution to having a limited amount of data to just make shit up? No, you get more data, you get more evidence, you construct better models. Our perceptions are limited but they're all we have. You don't go "this is unexplainable, let's make shit up to fill in the gap."

The evidence constantly changes, things are constantly being proven wrong, and science evolves to make up for that. Religion doesn't. It holds onto what it believes forever. And there is something inherently disturbing, depressing, and anti-human about that.

Thank god there are so many things out there waiting to be known! What a boring, dull existence it would be if god really did existence.
Click to expand...



Religion tries to evolve, it's zealots learn a new discourse to pervert with their stupidity, and we wind up with incoherent rantings of people like Dinesh D'Souza, fascist sellout extraordinaire.
 
AssHatZombie said:
Religion tries to evolve, it's zealots learn a new discourse to pervert with their stupidity, and we wind up with incoherent rantings of people like Dinesh D'Souza, fascist sellout extraordinaire.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't call changing your sales story to suit changing conditions (or improved knowledge) evolution. Spin? Yes. Desperation? Yes. Defending obscene income and riches? Abso-bloody-lutely.
 
Lowaicue said:
I wouldn't call changing your sales story to suit changing conditions (or improved knowledge) evolution. Spin? Yes. Desperation? Yes. Defending obscene income and riches? Abso-bloody-lutely.
Click to expand...

I would, it's the same as making your claws sharper or your legs faster.
 
Don't get me wrong, it's still an ugly and ineffective beast.

Let's see if the green fascists resort to religion after their "science" is debunked.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top