Atheists! Is this true ?? (Page 2) StuckInTheSixties: "how comes you can believe in things that you never seen with your eyes, Big Bang theory for example?!" Umm ... scientific research, and objective reasoning, perhaps?  Talent_M: @ Robert "Verily! We have adorned the near heaven with the stars (for beauty).[] (6) And to guard against every rebellious devil. (7) They cannot listen to the higher group (angels) for they are pelted from every side. (8) Outcast, and theirs is a constant (or painful) torment. (9) Except such as s%wy&y away something by stealing and they are pursued by a flaming fire of piercing brightness. (10)" surat Al Saaffat "And indeed, We have put the big stars in the heaven and We beautified it for the beholders.[] (16) And We have guarded it (near heaven) from every outcast Shaitân (devil). (17) Except him (devil) who steals the hearing then he is pursued by a clear flaming fire. (18)" surat Al Hijir StuckInTheSixties: Look, Talent, any moron should be able to know that Robert, in saying "The belief that there is a man that lives in the clouds that watches over us," is speaking figuratively, poetically, sarcastically. "A man that lives in the clouds" is a figurative way of describing the omnipotent god that lies at the center of the vast majority of religions, including Islam and Christianity. Is your argument that an omnipotent god exists so weak that you have to resort to picking at a figurative expression because it's not literal?  A_Prince: Well StuckInTheSixties, It is still theory just like evolution one, right? none of them is proven yet. Peace jim-jim!: ahhh.. emperical theory.... thousands of years of collective knowledge, yet so easy to ignore... the very basis of the word IGNORANT. satangel: I'm amazed by the sheer number of people that have the possibility to see, but still choose to remain blind because somebody else tells them that they are far better off living in he dark...  Robert_Paulson: 'It is still theory just like evolution one, right?' Along with the Heliocentric THEORY (The theory that the earth orbits the sun), the THEORY of gravity (The theory that stops us falling off the face of the Earth), the THEORY of evolution by natural selection etc You obviously dont understand what the word THEORY means when used in a scientific context...im tired of explaining it to u ignorant theists, so youll have to look it up yourselves. You need to learn more and understand something before you can attempt to criticise it. Evolution is PROVEN and OBSERVABLE....Evolution is FACT. Contrary to FAITH, which is the only thing theists have. StuckInTheSixties: I had looked at A_Prince's question to me shortly after he posted it, and considered just how many times in my nearly two and a half years in Wireclub I had someone make that tired old "evolution is just a theory" line on me, and at that moment, I just didn't give enough of a shit to correct that silly thing yet again for the umpteenth time. People who say, "Evolution is just a theory" are either ... ~ Just innocently ignorant that the word "theory" has both a very specific, articulate scientific usage and a familiar, colloquial usage, and the two usages have completely different meanings ~ Just too lazy to learn what that scientific usage is ~ Just too pigheaded and stubborn to be willing to learn what that scientific usage is, because they don't want to confront something that's possibly contrary to their faith-based beliefs ~ Just too cynical and dishonest to acknowledge that scientific usage even though they are aware of it A_Prince, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you simply don't know that the word "theory" has a different meaning than what you're giving it. Click the link below, and become slightly better educated. Then post another reply, will you please? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory  SPIRIT-ONE: just a 'Theory' and nothing more ,the unproven oppinion of others who wrote books about the subject ,that those who choose not to believe in a religion or spiritual belief ,take as 'pure Gospel' [even though it is in books written by man - just as the scriptures have been] all bullshit theories and nothing more IMO DISCLAIMER : MY BELIEF ,MAYBE NOT YOURS  Geoff: Two points. In answer to the original question - No, this atheist does not believe in any supernatural deities, of any kind. I can't speak for anyone else. Secondly, on stars... Why do they have to have a purpose? And there is evidence for the big bang, objective evidence that was not written by human hand. While it is still open to interpretation, it is there for everyone to see. The big bang theory is just the most plausible explanation we have with the current evidence. Geoff: ok...a third point. Bullshit theories do abound in this world and there are many of them. Ideas can't be blamed for the actions of the people who have them. But in the case of the 'Origin of the species', this is a book written after a lifetime's study, that has been peer reviewed, and has for 150 years taken everything that could be thrown at it. Before you say that scientists take it as gospel, no. No body takes anything in the world of science as gospel, because that would be missing the point entirely. In fact many scientists have spent a lot of time and money trying to prove that natural selection is false, because that would be a sure route to fame and unlimited research grants. So before you compare books written by unverified sources, promoted due to political interference, and followed blindly for over a thousand years (often by people who couldn't understand the language it was written in) with a worthy scientific tome that has undergone the most rigorous of tests, get your facts right. skully:  Scientific hypotheses are strengthened every day as more relevant info is added to them, while religious ideas are being disproved all the time, as more info reveals them as "false". That is "getting your facts straight"... KrAsH: @ sits - Your wasting your time explaining the theory of evolution to a theist,it flys in the face of their belief system.. Its liken to someone being bought up to believe that bridges dont exist,they could be walking across one,and will still refuse to believe it is one.. Expanding your thinking and being theist is a conflict in interest lol StuckInTheSixties: Geoff, nice post. Succinct, to the point. Krash, I didn't try to explain the "Theory of Evolution" to A_Prince. I only, reluctantly, after procrastinating, tried to point out the semantic difference between "theory" (as in a scientific theory, such as natural selection), and "theory" (such as my theory that Spirit-One was dropped on his head at birth). SPIRIT-ONE: I think you took a trip on some bad acid and never came back from the 60s LMFAO dropped on my head ,if you only knew ,LMFAO think they know but don't know $hit LMFAO A_Prince: Well sits, I know what "theory" means, you added nothing new to my knowledge by posting that link, It's still a theory though! Evolution theory so far is not supported by solid evidences, Evolutionists didn't manage to find the transition states till now, did they? They were happy when they found Lucy but there draw back when they found Ardi! They are just fluctuating between this and that but there's still no solid evidence for the Evolution theory to be promoted to a FACT, not to mention that high number of Evolutionists denounced this theory and some have gone to make modifications on it due to the new findings in Palaeontology and came out with new theories like Punctuated equilibrium. To sits and other folks, I'll be making a new thread to talk much deeper about this issue because obviously I'm bugging this thread with changing the main topic made by the original poster Rena787. See you there then, if you like to! Peace StuckInTheSixties: I'm just not up to the effort of this same tired argument. I'll say this, though: Religion starts with the conclusion, and then focuses on those things that seem to support that conclusion, and ignore those things that are contrary. The conclusion that it starts with never changes. Science, on the other hand, starts with observation and testing, and using the best information available at that time, reaches a conclusion ( in science jargon, a "theory" ) that can change over time as newer, better information becomes available through improvements in technology, new insights gained by peer review, etc. The observation and testing can change over time, the best information available can change over time, and the conclusion can change over time. One of the ways that a scientific theory can change over time is that it becomes more substantiated and more reliable. The Theory of Natural Selection is an example of this. The more it has been examined, the more reliable it has become. A_Prince, since you're saying, "It's still a theory," you're demonstrating that you still don't understand the concept of the scientific usage of the word. Geoff: OK, Prince. I'm going to say this >one more time<. Evolution does not rely on fossils for proof. Evolution's biggest evidence is in living organisms. The parallels and differences between various current species and families betrays common ancestry. Both in physiognomy and genetics. Don't use such a dumb term as 'transitional fossils'. ALL fossils are transitional. Your words demonstrate that you have no f**king idea what you are talking about. Now, I'm going to stop wasting my time dropping meringues into this particular black hole and go do something far more constructive. | Religion Chat Room 31 People Chatting Similar Conversations |