• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

OH N***A HELL NAW

kevin 714 said:
the term "tuned universe" is increibly disingenuous

and saying somethig like if electromagnetism were changed independent of the other forces is nonesense, since they are related and one cannoo be changed independetly of the others. they are the same force.

that article makes a lot of logical assumtpions to make its point
Click to expand...

yeah, i'm going to weigh the physicist with a PhD, who has authored an entire book on the subject of symmetry in physics more than a random barf poster.

it's hilarious you would call anything he wrote nonsense. you have no idea what he does. you just -think- you know.

you like kierkegaard, i like shakespeare (who i think had way more interesting things to say than kierkegaard) so i'll leave this quote here: "The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool."
 
mike23w said:
yeah, i'm going to weigh the physicist with a PhD, who has authored an entire book on the subject of symmetry in physics more than a random barf poster.

it's hilarious you would call anything he wrote nonsense. you have no idea what he does. you just -think- you know.

you like kierkegaard, i like shakespeare (who i think had way more interesting things to say than kierkegaard) so i'll leave this quote here: "The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool."
Click to expand...

I don't actually like Kierkegaard.


And the idea of altering one force without the others isn't just my idea, its shared by a great many cosmologists and eminent theorists. That article is a pop science article and nothing more. It's designed for laymans and people without a background in the subject, and it shows. talk of saying the universe is tuned and if you change one force you mess it all up, is ridiculous. and a great many cosmologists agree, have written on this dumb anecdote, and dispelled it. others have in fact written papers on what happens, theoretically, if you change them ALL equally, and how that would effect things

You have no idea about what my background is, or isn't. cosmology is an incredibly diverse subject with lots on discussion, argument, and non consensus among even the top players in the field. meanwhile youve done nothing but quote others, showing your utter lack of even miniscule knowledge on the subject at hand
 
Last edited:
Corb said:
You distance yourself from them by educating yourself on the subject not by choosing a different name.
I'm not trying to pick a fight, I'm just trying to make a point on the word "agnostic"
If lets say the christian myth was absolutely real. The whole thing.
We both stood in front of the god of Moses to be judged.
What would separate your "agnostic not atheist" self from philosophically agnostic proud and out atheist me?
I really want to know.
Click to expand...

Again, I do not separate myself in order to act superior.
I separate so that the person I'm talking to (who is often religious) knows that I have not made a decision, and therefore he doesn't need to be defensive while talking to me.

But anyway, I google'd your "agnostic atheist", and came across this quote:

There are four positions you can have in regards to god(s):
1. Gnostic Atheist - Knows and believes there is no god.
2. Agnostic Atheist - Lacks belief, but does not know there is no god.
3. Gnostic Theist - Knows and believes there is a god.
4. Agnostic Theist - Believes, but does not know there is a god.
Click to expand...

By that definition, I would fall under #2, which is also how you describe yourself. Yet there is a fundamental difference with our thought processes.

Also, I disagree with those 4 groups, because IMO there is no way to "know" that there is or isn't a God, so therefore #1 and #3 are impossible. "Knowing" is not the issue, believing is. That is why I define it as follows:

Atheist: One who has already decided there is no God.
Agnostic: One who has not decided either way.
Theist: One who has already decided there is a God.
 
Last edited:
Reli said:
Again, I do not separate in order to act superior.
I separate so that the person I'm talking to (who is often religious) knows that I have not made a decision, and therefore he doesn't need to be defensive.

But anyway, I google'd your "agnostic atheist", and came across this quote:



By that definition, I would fall under #2, which is also how you describe yourself. Yet there is a fundamental difference with our thought processes.

Also, I disagree with those 4 groups, because IMO there is no way to "know" that there is or isn't a God, so therefore #1 and #3 are impossible. "Knowing" is not the issue, believing is. That is why I define it as follows:

1. Atheist: One who has already decided there is no God.
2. Agnostic: One who has not decided either way.
3) Theist: One who has already decided there is a God.
Click to expand...

Again if you would actually bother to really read quality books by respected authors on the subject you would understand how silly this copy and paste of random made up stuff you find on the internet is.
And for fark sake I do not know how many more ways I can say the same thing.
ATHEISM IS NOT A BELIEF.
If you don't understand such an elementary thing this whole discussion is just waisting internets
 
Corb said:
Atheism is not a belief.
It is a weird word that describes what one is not. Not a theist. Not a believer.
Similar word in a different world could be "nonastrologist" "nonalchemist" "afairiest" etc
In a rational world void of superstition the word atheist would sound as ridiculous as "afaireist" Non believer in fairies.
Click to expand...

hmm. interesting point. it's kind of like negative space. you only see it when something is surrounding it. if there was nothing around negative space it wouldn't exist.

true too you only see atheists when surrounded by agnostics and deists.
 
moond0ggie said:
You seem to be stuck on picking an argument,
Its been explained already, an atheist flat out denies any existence of god,
an agnostic really dosent know & doesnt say, one way or the other.
Click to expand...


I realize English is my second language learned fairly late in life but I was really hoping it is good enough that I can convey fairly simple ideas if I really try.
I'm obviously wrong on that.

But thank you for finally clarifying what an atheist ACTUALLY means to me.
I've only been fascinated by the subject for most of my life, read more books on the subject that I can count and watched countless hours of debates on the subject...
 
Corb said:
I realize English is my second language learned fairly late in life but I was really hoping it is good enough that I can convey fairly simple ideas if I really try.
I'm obviously wrong on that.

But thank you for finally clarifying what an atheist ACTUALLY means to me.
I've only been fascinated by the subject for most of my life, read more books on the subject that I can count and watched countless hours of debates on the subject...
Click to expand...

Just so you know I had no problem following your argument either, your English is more than excellent
 
Corb said:
ATHEISM IS NOT A BELIEF.
Click to expand...

You can call it what you will. But IMO there's a distinct difference between someone who flat-out refuses to entertain any possibility of God at all, versus someone who leaves open that possibility. And I refuse to lump both of those groups together, as you seem to be doing.
 
Reli said:
You can call it what you will. But IMO there's a distinct difference between someone who flat-out refuses to entertain any possibility of God at all, versus someone who leaves open that possibility. And I refuse to lump both of those groups together, as you seem to be doing.
Click to expand...


Reli atheism is not hate of god or religion as you keep trying to imply.
It is simply the byproduct of a rationalistic materialistic view of the world.
Secular humanists view all supernatural as equally unlikely. Deities are just another form of superstition that make no sense in a rational world.
Prove to me the supernatural as reality in any form and I will seriously consider the possibility of a creator god.
Till then I have no reason to entertain that idea any more than that of my other sock missing because of the mischievous kleptomaniac sock fairy.
To quote dr Krauss in the debate above, theres a difference between having an open mind and a mind so open your brain falls off.
 
Corb said:
Reli atheism is not hate of god or religion as you keep trying to imply.
It is simply the byproduct of a rationalistic materialistic view of the world.
Secular humanists view all supernatural as equally unlikely. Deities are just another form of superstition that make no sense in a rational world.
Prove to me the supernatural as reality in any form and I will seriously consider the possibility of a creator god.
Till then I have no reason to entertain that idea any more than that of my other sock missing because of the mischievous kleptomaniac sock fairy.
To quote dr Krauss in the debate above, theres a difference between having an open mind and a mind so open your brain falls off.
Click to expand...

So all of those scientists shown in the graphs CoorsLight posted, who say they believe in a higher power, or haven't decided......Regardless if it's 7% or 30% or whatever....It's still a substantial number of scientists. Have their brains fallen off (out)? Who are we to judge?
 
Last edited:
Reli said:
So all of those scientists shown in the graphs posted earlier, who say they either believe in God, or leave open the possibility......Have their brains fallen off (out)? Who are we to judge?
Click to expand...

Interesting question considering I already posted a video in this thread were Michael Shermer discusses this very subject from his book "Why people believe weird things" specifically the chapter "why intelligent people believe weird things"
Short answer is because we are good at rationalizing irrational behavior to ourselves.

Good book I recommend it btw http://www.michaelshermer.com/weird-things/
 
Last edited:
FINALLY, this thread starts making some sense.

I have nothing to add, I just wanted to be a part of the problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top