Does Atheistic secularism really promote violence?

[Cú ChulainnParticipant 3910]

Now we all know X11’s favourite brand of anal lubrication. Fascinating.

See ya later sport 😉

[StentorianParticipant 1690]

Cú Chulainn wrote:

I’m a chicken s~~~ white knight in under two posts. Guess I’m hitting a nerve somewhere.

Irrelevancies to what is being discussed, and coming from X11 its par for the course. The differenc

Bro. Make no mistake about it. I am thoroughly amused! I too am making the shift from irritated to enjoyment.

To be honest, he’s not too bad of a guy. He’s reasonably intelligent. Has a pretty good sense of humor. He’s just a bundle of insecurities, which manifest themselves as an inflated ego and need to put down others and ridicule. Argue only to create conflict.

All of these things have an inner root. Some inadequacies which he is compensating for, by acting out and attacking every chance he gets.

I think it’s a cry for help.

I think x69 just needs a hug.

“He who takes an eel by the tail, or a woman at her word, soon finds he holds nothing.”

[StentorianParticipant 1690]

Cú Chulainn wrote:

Now we all know X11’s favourite brand of anal lubrication. Fascinating.

See ya later sport

Cú Chulainn, epic maneuvering. I don’t want to lean into the guy too much, cause believe it or not, I’m starting to warm up to him.

But from a logistical stand point. This was check and mate. Epic bro.

“He who takes an eel by the tail, or a woman at her word, soon finds he holds nothing.”

[X11Spectator 4520]

Don’t include me in your circle jerk.

Straight business, if you chicken s~~~ motherf~~~ers can stay on topic and debate your beliefs then have at it.

I guess you just gonna be too scared.

Sheldrake pfft, infinite universe “of course it is” rekt bitches.

[StentorianParticipant 1690]

X11 wrote:

Try not changing the subject, the debate was about your beliefs.

You know what? I think I changed my beliefs.

Science is amazing. And I don’t just mean my computer, cell phone or electronic tooth brush. I mean all of it, even the purely speculative parts.

You’re all right x58. There’s no need to bicker. I think we can all get along.

“He who takes an eel by the tail, or a woman at her word, soon finds he holds nothing.”

[StentorianParticipant 1690]

X11 wrote:

Sheldrake

x73. Sheldrake was debunked. Morphic Resonance. Don’t use it. People will think you’re a fraud.

X11 wrote:

Straight business

When you say straight business. How straight do you mean?

X11 wrote:

have at it.

Ok, you’ve got props from me for managing to sound like Johnny Depp in Pirates of the Corribean. Have at it!

x84 I’m just f~~~ing with you. I’m taking a p~~~. You’re all right man.

“He who takes an eel by the tail, or a woman at her word, soon finds he holds nothing.”

[X11Spectator 4520]

Science is amazing, you should try and learn about it and not be a gullible sucker buying into psuedo science like Sheldrake.

Your error as many attempted to point out besides me you were arguing a strawman and trying to refute s~~~ you did not even understand.

Its about nothing more than honesty. I was only trying to help you.

I am trained in physics to postgraduate level and published (about electronic structure of some novel alloys and high temperature super conducting ceramics). Not my field specifically but that’s where the jobs and big private corpirate funding was at the time.

I don’t just talk out my ass because I watched a YouTube clip.

[StentorianParticipant 1690]

X11 wrote:

Science is amazing, you should try and learn about it and not be a gullible sucker buying into psuedo science like Sheldrake.

Your error as many attempted to point out besides me you were arguing a strawman and trying to refute s~~~ you did not even understand.

All right. So real talk.

From your point of view, what do you see as erroneous, in terms of what I stated? Am I wrong in saying that science has inherent limits and cannot prove BB? Don’t they admit that themselves?

Where is the straw man in my argument?

X11 wrote:

Its about nothing more than honesty. I was only trying to help you.

Well, in terms of help. I appreciate you doing that. Thank you.

I wasn’t trying to be dishonest.

I honestly believe that science is the new religion of today. Metaphorically. There are very strong parallels.

Realistically of course, the two obviously differ in almost every regard. But when you line up certain theories, like BB or evolution. The lack of proof, postulates, start to sound like stories from religious texts.

“He who takes an eel by the tail, or a woman at her word, soon finds he holds nothing.”

[StentorianParticipant 1690]

X11 wrote:

I am trained in physics to postgraduate level and published (about electronic structure of some novel alloys and high temperature super conducting ceramics). Not my field specifically but that’s where the jobs and big private corpirate funding was at the time

That is really impressive. Physics is not a subject I excelled in. I did well pretty well in the maths. But pursued computers and the tech field. Nothing close to what you had to study. I have some idea of the study involved. And it’s no joke.

X11 wrote:

I don’t just talk out my ass because I watched a YouTube clip

Ok, you got me with the youtube comment. Guilty on that front. I’m a youtube addict. There is so much to learn.

Plus for my fellow dilettantes out there. There’s no better way to fly. 🙂

“He who takes an eel by the tail, or a woman at her word, soon finds he holds nothing.”

[X11Spectator 4520]

Stentorian wrote:

From your point of view, what do you see as erroneous

1. Your insistence and certainty the universe is infinite.

2. Your use of the words proof and theory.

For strawman see point 2 above.

3. Your false claim you persist with that there is no evidence for BB or the TOE.

the laziest person can find mountains of evidence, you even saw a key piece of evidence with your own eyes.

Lastly science and religion use completely different tools and study completely different things, there are no parralels other than a search for truth. Operationally they are polar opposites. Your ignorance tells you otherwise. I respect both when done properly.

Lastly the messes of ideas like this make no sense;

Metaphorically. There are very strong parallels.

”
Realistically of course, the two obviously differ in almost every regard. But when you line up certain theories, ”

You are partial to woo, do you know what woo means. It is a very derogatory word. Serious religious scholars and scientists unite in disdain for this modern ckickbait woo trend that tries to mash religion, mysticism, science and spirituality together. It is the bottom feeder level of thought. Please bro avoid the woo at all costs.
Logging out now, s~~~ to do.

[Anonymous 1]

X11 wrote:

Logging out now, s~~~ to do.

^^proof God exists^^

[StentorianParticipant 1690]

X11 wrote:

1. Your insistence and certainty the universe is infinite.

2. Your use of the words proof and theory.

For strawman see point 2 above.

3. Your false claim you persist with that there is no evidence for BB or the TOE.

I appreciate your honesty x11. Catch you later bro.

“He who takes an eel by the tail, or a woman at her word, soon finds he holds nothing.”

[StentorianParticipant 1690]

Anonymous wrote:

X11 wrote:

Logging out now, s~~~ to do.

^^proof God exists^^

🙂 You’ve got a gift for humor. The English wit.

F~~~ it, say what you will, the guy is thoroughly educated.

“He who takes an eel by the tail, or a woman at her word, soon finds he holds nothing.”

[sidecarParticipant 35837]

Stentorian wrote:

sidecar, do I need to be a mechanic to drive a car?

No, but that’s not what you are doing here. So this just another attempt of yours to sidetrack with a fallacy.

You need to understand at least the basics of car repair to debate, for example, the merits of the hydrostatic CVT transmission in some honda motorcycles.

And yet here you are, metaphorically calling a wrench a screwdriver, and yet you still expect and demand us to take you seriously?

Stentorian wrote:

I am looking at it from a much larger scale.

No, you’re just wrong. Claiming to be “looking at it from a larger scale” doesn’t negate that.

Stentorian wrote:

Please show where I confuse these terms in any way.

I already have. Multiple times.

You keep saying things like “untestable theory”. That shows you don’t know what that word means. And given the number of times I have tried to correct you on it, only for you to persist in using it incorrectly, it’s clear you don’t want to know what a theory actually is.

That’s willful ignorance.

Where did the ball come from?

‘theory – a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.’

Wrong.

Where the f~~~ did you even get that from? What supposed “authority” are you trying to argue from now?

But even in that c~~~eyed personal definition of yours you are missing the main point, which is the whole “subject to experimentation” bit. If it hasn’t been subjected to proof, if it hasn’t been tested, it’s not a theory.

Here’s a better definition for you:

“A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, that has been repeatedly tested and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.”

That’s the correct, scientific meaning of the word, not the ridiculous religions misconception of it. And if you’re going to debate science, you have to use the correct scientific definition.

You wouldn’t try to debate religion by re-defining “faith” as “gullibility”, would you?

[Frank V.Participant 2445]

Interesting take on it. On a site such as this, isn’t any post potentially a division creating post?

True, but as I posted before, the division and conflict are not a bug, it is a feature. It was intended to inflame and provoke.

The OP gave his opinion, certainly a strong and contentious one.

No, he tried to hide a statement as a question, and in prior posts tells a whole group of our brothers “F~~~ you”. He is here to put us against each other. He tells people “f~~~ you” and is “surprised” at the response ? BULLS~~~ !

The post does not stand alone, it is a part of a clear pattern of provoking others.

Take a look ! He has done nothing to defend his own views. He is silent because he has already achieved what he wanted.

Religion and politics requires gentlemen to have a discussion. Should everyone resort to only hive-mind threads because some folks argue at a base level? That’s like making the whole class skip recess because one kid acted out of line.

Maybe the OP needs to actually do this instead of opening threads with “f~~~ you” and stop telling others what they think. Putting words in other people’s mouths instead of letting them speak for themselves and addressing what they actually say is dishonest at the very least.

I see nothing the OP has done wrong here although I do not know anything of the New York Terror reply – I haven’t seen that thread.

Take a look at their post here. Take a look at the “f~~~ you” thread.

You can’t yell “f~~~ you” to a group of people, and then have any right to complain about how they respond.

If another agnostic told Christians “F~~~ you” I would tell him to f~~~ off and feel the Christians would have a right to not take that s~~~.

If it would be wrong for me to tell Christians “You don’t really think that” and that Christianity is not really a religion, then it would be just as wrong to tell Atheists that they really do believe in a religion when they say they don’t. You are calling them liars.

And if it is wrong to do it one, then it is wrong to do it to the other.

This s~~~ was bait.

Frank V.

[FunInTheSunParticipant 8283]

surfdude12 wrote:

Statism is the religion of athiests – worship of the State

Are you freakin’ kidding me? What does atheism have to do with statism?

You can’t predict what political ideology a person will adopt because (s)he doesn’t worship your god.

You’re mixing politics with religion and non-belief. You ought to judge people as individuals. There are atheists that I would enjoy being friends with and some that I wouldn’t—based on their personalities!!!

"I saw that there comes a point, in the defeat of any man of virtue, when his own consent is needed for evil to win-and that no manner of injury done to him by others can succeed if he chooses to withhold his consent. I saw that I could put an end to your outrages by pronouncing a single word in my mind. I pronounced it. The word was ‘No.’" (Atlas Shrugged)

[Anonymous 1]

FunInTheSun wrote:

Are you freakin’ kidding me? What does atheism have to do with statism?

You can’t predict what political ideology a person will adopt because (s)he doesn’t worship your god.

These poor fools have confused Atheism with Marxism. I understand why they are upset with Marxist rhetoric as exemplified from Hitler, Stalin, and Mao.

However, they have misdirected their hatred onto “Atheists” due to a lack of understanding of the Greek and Latin derived words utilized in the English language.

[Anonymous 42]

Ahhhhh!

Another good place to take a s~~~!

[OneTrueMisfitSpectator 2690]

Great post Stentorian!

Don't care

[X11Spectator 4520]

A letter from 2004, sad.

Stentorian I am about to quiet on you.

Have you considered writing a mathematically rigorous paper pointing out the mistakes in BB and putting forward your own theory.

Let us know what theory you have as a superior alternative to BB.

Cutting and pasting walls of text is not going to engage anyone.

State YOUR theories.

[Author]

Posts