#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
Do atheist have Schizophrenia?
Schizophrenia is a mental disorder characterized by a disintegration of thought processes and of emotional responsiveness. It most commonly manifests as auditory hallucinations, paranoid or bizarre delusions, or disorganized speech and thinking, and it is accompanied by significant social or occupational dysfunction.
Without a doubt.
Side Score: 51
|
 |
Who said that?
Side Score: 88
|
|
-12
points
"A mental disorder characterized by a disintegration of thought processes..." Have you read their postings? "It most commonly manifests as auditory hallucinations, paranoid or bizarre delusions, or disorganized speech and thinking.." There are not any Christian's out to get you, it is all in your head. " Is accompanied by significant social or occupational dysfunction." For social get to gathers they come to CD. The inability to work is clear, as much time as they spend here. One cannot be at work and here to. We just found those on unemployment. Side: Without a doubt.
I can tell if the debate is created by Thewayitis before i even open it. I don't know why I keep arguing with you because clearly you cannot be effected by logic, facts or reasoning. Atheists are schizophrenics? I think not, the smartest minds in the world are atheists, meanwhile the most ignorant and bigoted minds in the world happen to belong to the religious, what a coincidence. "A mental disorder characterized by a disintegration of thought processes..." Have you read their postings? Have you read yours? Yeah the belief that an unfalsifiable bearded man in a nightgown created this ball of crap we call earth with the intentions of love and mercy...... yeah. "It most commonly manifests as auditory hallucinations, paranoid or bizarre delusions, or disorganized speech and thinking.." There are not any Christian's out to get you, it is all in your head. Yeah because that's what atheists believe, that christians are out to get them. So when you pray, you are talking with an infallible deity who may or may not answer your prays to coincide with the actual future. If you believe your imaginary friend actually talks to you and loves you, that's definately not schizophrenia. " Is accompanied by significant social or occupational dysfunction." For social get to gathers they come to CD. The inability to work is clear, as much time as they spend here. One cannot be at work and here to. We just found those on unemployment. Because all atheists are unemployed, you know all those scientists, biologists, physicists, paleontologists, chemists, they don't have jobs. And apparently you are on here, you are Christian, therefore all christians are unemployed, you see how you have lost the ability to reason. Side: Who said that?
the smartest minds in the world are atheists It really does irritate me how atheist always claim this in a manner that suggests they actually believe it to be true. Dream on. So, you believe that Isaac Newton does not qualify for a smart mind? He was a Christian, and one of the smartest minds that ever lived. You are almost as bad as saurbaby - lets just hope you don't go back on your statment and accuse me of misreading it like she did. Both your statements are loud, clear and oozing with ignorance. Side: Without a doubt.
Stephen Hawkings has the highest IQ ever measured in a human and is an atheist. And I am not saying there are no smart Christians, because I would have to be retarded to say that, but the thing is that in modern day most of the smartest minds (highest IQ people) are atheist who belong to institutions like CERN, the American Academy of Science, etc. The thing is that most of the really smart Christian minds like Issac Newton, Galileo, Kepler, etc who were absolutely brilliant lived in a time before most of the theories and facts existed that would have caused them to doubt their faith. Even someone like Einstein who is arguably one of the smartest men ever and was religious, but was still rather ignorant because he rejected the emerging and proven field of quantum physics because he said "God does not throw dice." This is an example of where a previously held belief is inhibiting the growth of knowledge because it clashes with belief. That is why most of the smartest minds today are atheist, because there are all of these proven theories, facts and fields of scientific discovery and advancement which are in stark opposition to faith. Side: Who said that?
LOL I KNEW you'd change your original statement. You never said "the smartest mind in the world is atheist" you said "the smartest minds in the world are atheist" which implies that in the list of smartest minds there are no Christians but all atheist. Retract your statement or fail to respond because you were entirely false in every meaning of the word. Isaac Newton - one of the smartest minds that ever lived - Christian. Ok, so you edited your post. Good move, although still you are false. You are "going off in a tangent" so I believe we should stick to the original statement. You claim that the smartest minds are atheist - that is false as Isaac Newton is one of the smartest minds that ever lived and is a Christian. Do you disbelieve this? Side: Without a doubt.
You actually are trying to explain why Isaac Newton was so devoted to God? Some nerve you have there - as an atheist, you don't exactly have that right - nor does anyone. Again, you are deviating from the original statement you made in ignorance. You have yet to retract or fail to respond so I am assuming you are stubborn and wish to discuss matters outside of your statement such as Newton's faith and/or statistics through the ages. Not a wise move as those with middle to high IQ's (in fact, anyone with an IQ) can suss your motives and determine your line of thought at the snap of one's finger. Lets state for the record: Your statement: "the smartest minds are atheist" My statement: "false, Issac Newton - one of the smartest that ever lived - Christian" Do you believe that Newton does not qualify for the list of smartest minds that ever lived? Give a simple yes or no answer similar to your original simple - and ignorant - statement. Side: Without a doubt.
Sure, anyone can edit their statement, but that does not suddenly make their previous statement correct. You claimed that the smartest minds belong to atheist. That is false and I gave the example of Isaac Newton who is numbered along with the most intelligent/smartest minds of all time. You were wrong and in doing so should recognize this instead of doing a saurbaby and trying to change the original statement. Side: Without a doubt.
Yes I will say that i should amend my statement to say that not every single of the smartest minds is atheist as my previous statement may have implied. But the point I am getting at is the overwhelming majority of the smartest people alive are atheist, those who work at research facilities like CERN, those who win Nobel prizes in the fields of physics, chemistry, etc, and 99% of the scientists at the American Academy of Sciences are atheist. I am going to say that if Issac Newton lived in our time and possessed the knowledge of our day that he would be an atheist, the thing is that he lived in a very religious time with little to no scientific advancement (thanks dark ages). But considering what Issac Newton did, gravity and F=MA, that is absolutely child's play considering things like Schroedinger's equations in modern day quantum physics. Most of the smartest minds around are here now and are smart because they can build on the collective knowledge of mankind, hence why MOST of the smartest minds now are atheist, that is the point I have been getting at with all my current and previous statement Side: Who said that?
I literally couldn't be assed reading your excuses for what you said, I only see your retraction of your original ignorant statement (which is the key element in this discussion) and I - being a Christian - appreciate that greatly. However, I did notice that you speak of Newton's work as "childs play" so for that I think you should pull your head out of your ass. Your statement of "the smartest minds in the world are atheist" now reads "some of the smartest minds in the world are atheist" which, of course, is a given as its either going to be x or y. "You actually are trying to explain why Isaac Newton was so devoted to God? Some nerve you have there - as an atheist, you don't exactly have that right - nor does anyone. Again, you are deviating from the original statement you made in ignorance. You have yet to retract or fail to respond so I am assuming you are stubborn and wish to discuss matters outside of your statement such as Newton's faith and/or statistics through the ages. Not a wise move as those with middle to high IQ's (in fact, anyone with an IQ) can suss your motives and determine your line of thought at the snap of one's finger. Lets state for the record: Your statement: "the smartest minds are atheist" My statement: "false, Issac Newton - one of the smartest that ever lived - Christian" Do you believe that Newton does not qualify for the list of smartest minds that ever lived? Give a simple yes or no answer similar to your original simple - and ignorant - statement" - reposted as requested. This is my post from above. Side: Without a doubt.
However, I did notice that you speak of Newton's work as "childs play" so for that I think you should pull your head out of your ass. Please provide works of Newton to back that up. Sure he has great pioneering work but the great advancements came after his death.you could make the argument that it is harder to do the pioneering but if you look at Schroedinger equations, and look at Newton's laws of motion there is absolutely no comparison. And Newton invented Calculus (Same time as Liebniz) to obtain things like instantaneous acceleration but the advancements in mathematics since then still trump his work. I never said Newton's work alone was child play, I said compared to Schroedinger's equations it was child play, look them up right now... then look at the magnificent equation of Newton's second law of motion, F=ma. yeah, Newton got outdone by an atheist in terms of complexity. If anything you need to pull your head out your ass and do the research, let alone read the sentence before making such statements to me. You actually are trying to explain why Isaac Newton was so devoted to God? Some nerve you have there - as an atheist, I am hypothesizing that Newton was likely religious because he lived in a time without much scientific collective knowledge. The reason we have so many atheists now is because there is that collective knowledge which has been built upon as a foundation for civilization. Even you have to admit that having no access to any modern knowledge or discovery gives Newton a higher chance that he would have been Christian. You have yet to retract or fail to respond so I am assuming you are stubborn and wish to discuss matters outside of your statement such as Newton's faith and/or statistics through the ages. Not a wise move as those with middle to high IQ's (in fact, anyone with an IQ) can suss your motives and determine your line of thought at the snap of one's finger. Lets state for the record: Your statement: "the smartest minds are atheist" My statement: "false, Issac Newton - one of the smartest that ever lived - Christian" Do you believe that Newton does not qualify for the list of smartest minds that ever lived? Give a simple yes or no answer similar to your original simple - and ignorant - statement" - reposted as requested. This is my post from above. I already addressed this is my previous reply. Side: Who said that?
Please provide works of Newton to back that up You actually want me to explain why Newton's work is not "childs play" and why he qualifies for one of the smartest minds in that ever lived? All you have to do is type his name into google and his amazing acheivments will appear. Better still, go to your local library and there will be numorous books without a doubt on his life and inventions. You then go on to explain some of his achievments so for me to explain his achievments would be an utter waste of time as you seem to be familiar with a few of them already. I am hypothesizing that Newton was likely religious because he lived in a time without much scientific collective knowledge Instead of trying to look for reasons why Newton didn't share your disbelief in God, why not look at how he himself explains his belief in God? It appears that not I am required to be doing further research on the undisputed genious, but yourself. Furthermore, if you are still wishing to put down the amazing acheivments of the likes of Newton, Einstein etc, then I think we'd all like to see you complete even a quarter of what they acheived. Even you have to admit that having no access to any modern knowledge or discovery gives Newton a higher chance that he would have been Christian In his time, there was modern knowledge, in Jesus' time, there was modern knowledge. The term 'modern' is applicable to any age that is at present therefore whilst now we view the present age to be modern, then if we are still here in 100 years, the day in 100 years will be modern and this day now will be out of date and irrelevant. So, no, the reason you give for his devotion to God relates in no way to time but rather to the fact that he saw truth and accepted. Side: Without a doubt.
I'm not saying Newton wasn't smart and didn't do great things, I am saying that much greater things have been done since then, however you seem to need to go back 300 years to find greatness from a christian mind. Newton did make amazing discoveries but there have been infinitely more complicated and incredible discoveries since then in all fields of science especially physics, Newton's home turf. Newton has even been disproved on the microscopic scale as Newtonian physics breaks down at the molecular level. I know some of his inventions were great but if I am looking for the smartest minds ever, I am going to look at the people who can make and operate the Large Hadron Collider at CERN and not Newton from 300 years ago whose achievements have been eclipsed by those of modern science. nstead of trying to look for reasons why Newton didn't share your disbelief in God, why not look at how he himself explains his belief in God? I am simply saying there is a positive correlation between the collective knowledge of mankind and the percentage of population (or scientists) who are atheist. Why would Newton not be subjected to that correlation? Furthermore, if you are still wishing to put down the amazing acheivments of the likes of Newton, Einstein etc, then I think we'd all like to see you complete even a quarter of what they acheived. I am not putting down their acheievements, simply saying that there are greater ones out there, that in no way denigrates the work these men did. There has been so much achieved in all fields of science by the non religious, so why do you ignore their secular achievements? In his time, there was modern knowledge, in Jesus' time, there was modern knowledge. The term 'modern' is applicable to any age that is at present therefore whilst now we view the present age to be modern, then if we are still here in 100 years, the day in 100 years will be modern and this day now will be out of date and irrelevant. So, no, the reason you give for his devotion to God relates in no way to time but rather to the fact that he saw truth and accepted. Stop arguing semantics, you know that by modern knowledge I mean the knowledge that we now know. Actually it does have everything to do with time, are you seriously saying that the people 300 years ago knew as much as we know know? Because if you seriously think so think I suggest you examine anything you come in contact with everyday and see how it is possible due to scientific advancement. It's a lot easier to accept a myth when you have no knowledge, facts or theories that would contradict it. There is a reason people hundreds and thousands of years ago thought there were gods who caused rain and thunder and plants to grow, maybe they thought there was one for all of it, but that doesn't change the fact that they were idiots because that isn't how nature works. They knew nothing about the natural world but we do now, and you are completely wrong to say that knowledge has nothing to do with belief, because do you know why these beliefs in a rain god, earthquake god, etc are no longer viable, because they stand in contradiction of proven things like evaporation and plate tectonics. Time has everything to do with belief, because time has everything to do with knowledge. Side: Who said that?
I just drank something and it went down the wrong way, ouch! Ok, back to debating, eyes watering as I cough and splutter :'(. No, I don't need to go back 300 years to find greatness from a Christian mind. Newton just so happens to be one of the smartest minds that ever lived and it was he that came to mind when you said that the smartest minds in this world belonged to that of atheists. I could suggest others from more recently but I admire Newton therefore he popped up first. Your conclusion of how Newton was converted is one that I am sure many atheists could come up with, but being a Christian, I can identify what appealed to him and can relate to his conversion therefore I know that time, Schroedinger, statistics and scientist's achievments have nothing to do with our love for Him. As an atheist, that must be difficult for you to understand just like it will be difficult for me to understand being so devoted to atheism, so here we should probably agree to disagree. Furthermore, as for the putting down of Einstein and Newton, you did put down their acheivments labelling it as "childs play" and labelling Einstein as ignorant which is something you have no right doing as a young inexperienced 17 year old (not that I am experienced either, as I am only one year ahead of this but still I do not put down intelligent men or their acheivments which have advanced our society incredibly). I accept that there have been adavancments since their time and appreciate this but what you refuse to do is appreciate and respect how we got to where we are. Without the likes of Newton and Einstein, we would not be where we are now. Give them some credit, at least, even if just a little. Time does not have everything to do with knowledge, it relates to certain aspects of it but in no way does it have everything to do with it. The same as time has to do with belief but does not relate to all aspects. For example, my conversion to Christianity - I was converted in a certain situation where I realized my only hope was God - call it semantics but here I am giving the example that the modern days had nothing to do with the situation I was in nor did it affect the love that filled my heart when I was saved. Side: Without a doubt.
Your conclusion of how Newton was converted is one that I am sure many atheists could come up with Newton converted? what are you talking about. Furthermore, as for the putting down of Einstein and Newton, you did put down their acheivments labelling it as "childs play" I already discussed this, I sayed Newton's laws of motion is child's play compared to the equations of quantum physics, which is absolutely true in terms of complexity, I am not saying that Newton's laws are false on a macroscopic scale because that would not be true. This was not an insult to Newton, I am saying there are clearly much more complicated things out there which were a lot harder to discover. and labelling Einstein as ignorant which is something you have no right doing as a young inexperienced 17 year old (not that I am experienced either, as I am only one year ahead of this but still I do not put down intelligent men or their acheivments which have advanced our society incredibly) My age has nothing to do with it when it comes to the statements Einstein made, my age has no bearing on that, please do not try and use that as an argument and stick to refuting the point I made as to why i claimed Einstein was willfully ignorant in the case of quantum physics. He rejected an entire scientific field because he believed God did not throw dice, that is not good science to allow belief to take precedence over facts. Now obviously I am not against Einstein overall, I just think that he made an error allowing faith to enter into a scientific opinion. I still think he is a brilliant man, I know a lot about his theories of general relativity and special relativity, I find his concepts of light, time, and the fabric of space time to be a beautiful representation of nature. I am saying he was rather unscientific about his approach to something that contradicted belief in a certain field. I accept that there have been adavancments since their time and appreciate this but what you refuse to do is appreciate and respect how we got to where we are I see what you are talking about how and maybe I haven't given them enough credit because to get to the stage of knowledge we are at now we have to have a foundation to build on, no matter how simplistic there must be some foundation. My personal position is that I value the end products of scientific advancements more than i value the basics that they built upon because when looking at each discovery, theory etc at face value the later is would take more intelligence and knowledge to understand, but trust me, I do see your side of the position. Time does not have everything to do with knowledge, it relates to certain aspects of it but in no way does it have everything to do with it. The same as time has to do with belief but does not relate to all aspects. Knowledge and belief are not the same though because beliefs do not change, If Jesus was believed to be the lord and saviour 1500 years ago you will still believe that now. However knowledge grows, that is indisputable. All the research that has been done over the years has been done to further increase the knowledge of mankind and better understand the universe in all its facets. Think of time like a person, when they are born they know very little, just what is natural to them , but to understand the world better they have to learn, they gain knowledge an store it, they can learn more through their own research of studying the findings of others. But knowledge is something that grows as scientists conduct research and studies and experiments to formulate theories and prove or falsify them in the pursuit of understanding. As our civilizations have progressed we have learned more and more about the world, simple concept, the more we learn the more our true understanding of the universe increases. Side: Who said that?
Newton converted? what are you talking about You were discussing how Newton was a Christian and that the age he was in played a major part of it. Converted to Christianity? He rejected an entire scientific field because he believed God As one of the most intelligent beings to ever exist, I think we can accept that this was something Einstein felt was right to do and instead of labelling him as ignorant, respect him for what he has done for the world of science. I see what you are talking about how and maybe I haven't given them enough credit because to get to the stage of knowledge we are at now we have to have a foundation to build on, no matter how simplistic there must be some foundation. A second retraction of a statement you have made. So far, your debate is standing on one stilt that is crumpling yet further to the ground. As for your argument regarding time, I really don't see where you are going with that nor do I see it as relevant to your original statement since we have determined that modern times refer to the present age therefore every single year in history has been modern at that time and in 100 years from now, today will be irrelevant and out of date whereas the day in 100 years from now will be regarded as the modern time. In Newton's time, that was modern. Since I have succeeded in proving your first statement wrong and further proving a second point you make to be wrong, then where is this debate really going? I got what I came for - the truth that the smartest minds in the world are not just atheist but Christian also. Side: Without a doubt.
You were discussing how Newton was a Christian and that the age he was in played a major part of it. Converted to Christianity I see the sense in the first sentence but I don't see how the relates to conversion, maybe I'm just getting this. As one of the most intelligent beings to ever exist, I think we can accept that this was something Einstein felt was right to do and instead of labelling him as ignorant, respect him for what he has done for the world of science. Einstein rejected quantum mechanics because he said God did not throw dice, while quantum mechanics is proven and tested and works perfectly according to quantum mechanical theories. Although he is very credible he still rejected reality in the name of belief. A second retraction of a statement you have made. So far, your debate is standing on one stilt that is crumpling yet further to the ground Stop cherry picking sentences out of my arguments, I went on to say that in terms of complexity it sill takes more intelligence to comprehend and create the theories and equations used in things like quantum mechanics than it does to comprehend F=ma, that heavier things accelerate less with the same force, not hard to understand. However it does take an unbelievable amount of intelligence to be a nobel prize winning particle physicist working with the large hadron collider at CERN and know what you are doing. And the overwhelming majority of those people are atheist, hence how I can infer that most of the smartest people in the world are atheist. As for your argument regarding time, I really don't see where you are going with that nor do I see it as relevant to your original statement since we have determined that modern times refer to the present age therefore every single year in history has been modern at that time and in 100 years from now, today will be irrelevant and out of date whereas the day in 100 years from now will be regarded as the modern time. In Newton's time, that was modern. Semantics again, I said modern in reference to the knowledge we have now, and that the fact that Newton had no access to or understanding of what we know now is very relevant in asserting that he was Christian. If Newton knew what we knew, would he be an atheist? No way to know for sure but I am leaning towards yes because as collective understanding of the universe and collective knowledge goes up so does the percentage of scientists who are atheist. That is how it was originally relevant. Since I have succeeded in proving your first statement wrong and further proving a second point you make to be wrong, then where is this debate really going? I got what I came for - the truth that the smartest minds in the world are not just atheist but Christian also My first statement was amended to say that most of the smartest minds in the world are atheist, that is the point i was getting at. you latched onto specific words and waged a war of semantics when I am arguing that most of the most intelligent people are atheist. You have in no way refuted that unless you plan to convert all the people working at CERN, all the nobel prize science winners, and all the scientists at the American Academy of sciences. There are smart Christian minds, but my point is and always has been that the majority of the smartest are atheist because a better understanding of the world causes you to prize fact above fiction. When the smartest people work in field where things must be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt before accepted, that tends to be reflected in their ideology and beliefs as well. Side: Who said that?
Although he is very credible he still rejected reality in the name of belief. No, he rejected an idea in the name of God. Big difference. Stop cherry picking sentences out of my arguments, I went on to say that in terms of complexity it sill takes more intelligence to comprehend and create the theories and equations used in things like quantum mechanics than it does to comprehend F=ma, that heavier things accelerate less with the same force, not hard to understand. However it does take an unbelievable amount of intelligence to be a nobel prize winning particle physicist working with the large hadron collider at CERN and know what you are doing. And the overwhelming majority of those people are atheist, hence how I can infer that most of the smartest people in the world are atheist. I am not cherry picking, I am trying to keep it relatively simple but this is difficult when you keep ranting on about nobel prize winners and other matters that have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with your original statement and Isaac Newton. Just because there are famous people with a high level of intelligence does not mean that there are no intelligent people below the radar. You don't have to be well known and down on the records to be smart - you can be a factory worker or even a public toilets cleaner yet have an extremely high IQ yet unknown to fame. For you to not believe this then you must be rather stupid. If Newton knew what we knew, would he be an atheist Stop assuming that his belief in God had everything to do with "what he knew then as opposed to what we know now". Its a pointless argument as the fact of the matter is he was one of the smartest minds that ever lived, was a follower of Christ and no longer lives here on earth so maybe if you are converted along the way you can ask him yourself when the time comes but till then, he was a Christian regardless of "time". "In the absence of any other proof, the thumb alone would convince me of God's existence" If that is enough to prove Newton of God then I don't think that any amount of science will tell him that God is not true; he clearly has enough faith to move mountains so I do not see there being any chance that the inventions of fools will sway his profoundly intelligent mind - it would be literally impossible. So, no, if Newton were alive today he would most certainly not be an atheist. I am leaning towards yes because as collective understanding of the universe and collective knowledge goes up so does the percentage of scientists who are atheist. That is how it was originally relevant Ok, so give me some information that would be likely to sway Newton's mind if he was here today so that you are not the only one "leaning towards yes". My first statement was amended to say that most of the smartest minds in the world are atheist, that is the point i was getting at. You weren't getting at that, you were "getting at" all of the smartest minds being atheist which is bullshit so I proved you wrong which is when you "amended" your statement to many of the smartest minds being atheist as opposed to all. This is also known as retraction. You have in no way refuted that I did, I included Newton who is one of the smartest minds that ever existed here on earth and who is also well known for his devotion to God. If this isn't refuting "the smartest minds belong to atheists" then you musn't know what a refuting is. you latched onto specific words and waged a war of semantics when I am arguing that most of the most intelligent people are atheist False again, I latched onto something that was false in order to bring out the truth and you were not arguing that most of the most intelligent people are atheist, you were arguing that all intelligent people are atheist. There are smart Christian minds, but my point is and always has been that the majority of the smartest are atheist This is irrelevant as it is not what you first stated and I am not discussing majorities and neither were you up till your retraction. I see no point in further debating as you have retracted your original statement which is all I targeted and wanted to debate, and since that is done and dusted I see no point in continuing; I got what I came for. For the record, you can rant on as much as you like about what Einstein rejected but you rejected something far greater and Einstein himself did not stoop that low. Side: Without a doubt.
No, he rejected an idea in the name of God. Big difference Einstein did not reject an idea, he rejected a proven and verifiable field because his beliefs contradicted that field. That is tantamount to me rejecting gravity because my beliefs contradict it. It doesn't matter if he said it in the name of God, he was still verifiably wrong. you can be a factory worker or even a public toilets cleaner yet have an extremely high IQ yet unknown to fame. For you to not believe this then you must be rather stupid. Yes you can be but generally smart people do work which utilizes their intelligence. I don't know why you are referring to particle physicists as if they are famous but trust me they are not. The main thing these scientists are known for is their intelligence because they research things that require an extremely high level of intelligence to remotely comprehend. If you pick up your average janitor and ask him to analyze data from the large hadron collider collisions chances are he would not be able to, because it requires years and sometimes decades of schooling, and years of experience to work at research facilities like CERN which is one of the most advanced in the world in terms of particle physics. You can say that a particle physicist is more intelligent than a garbage man because of the education and experience that job requires, you would be hard pressed to find a garbage man with a higher IQ than a particle physicist's. Stop assuming that his belief in God had everything to do with "what he knew then as opposed to what we know now Except it does, you have yet to address the rise in atheism, agnosticism and skepticism and the collective knowledge of mankind has increased. Ok, so give me some information that would be likely to sway Newton's mind if he was here today so that you are not the only one "leaning towards yes". 1 - Evolution (i know you don't believe it but the overwhelming majority of scientists do, and for newton would not be a respected scientist nowadays if he rejected it) 2 - Biological functions - it is a lot easier to attribute god for creating life if you don't understand how life functions 3 - Abiogenisis - If you can get organic material to create life from inorganic material you do not need god to explain origins of life. 4 - Geology and knowledge of the history of the universe - The more you know the history of the universe the less you need god to explain it. Please do not debate these fields individually, they are proven within the scientific community whether or not you accept them and if newton were a modern scientist he would most likely accept them. It is not so much that science persuades you that God doesn't exist, nothing can do that directly, but it takes away the neccesity of god for explanation. God becomes an unnecessary hypothesis because you realize the system operates fine without a God, if you do not understand the system as Newton did not then it becomes much easier to believe in God. I did, I included Newton who is one of the smartest minds that ever existed here on earth and who is also well known for his devotion to God. If this isn't refuting "the smartest minds belong to atheists" then you musn't know what a refuting is. You never refuted the statement that most of the smartest minds are atheist. All you did was point out one smart Christian, you have yet to address the fact the most of the most intelligent people are atheist, agnostic or non religious. you were arguing that all intelligent people are atheist. I never argued that, stop bickering about past semantics and focus on the point I am actually making. This is irrelevant as it is not what you first stated and I am not discussing majorities and neither were you up till your retraction. It's actually quite relevant as what I first stated was just they way I worded my argument that most smart people are atheist. It is you who cannot get past a the semantics. Notice I didn't bring up the fact that I said the greatest minds ARE atheists, not WERE atheists and demand you name great intelligent christians alive today, it's because I am actually debating arguments, not words. For the record, you can rant on as much as you like about what Einstein rejected but you rejected something far greater and Einstein himself did not stoop that low. Muslim's around the world would say the same thing about you for rejecting Allah. You commit the same heresy you condemn me for against all the other Gods thought up through out human history, you reject all of them, I just take it one step further. Side: Who said that?
Well, you tell me not to debate your points so there is no point in me even addressing them plus you know my views on inventions. Furthermore, you keep discussing the matter of "most atheists" when that was not what your original statement was that I proved wrong therefore I am not discussing that. You said "the smartest minds in the world are atheist" and I gave an example (1 was all it took) to prove you wrong using Newton as he is one of the most profoundly intelligent men that ever lived and he was a devoted Christian. You retracted your comment therefore this debate is over as I had no desire to discuss multiple other issues. I consider this debate to be over as I got what I came for - the retraction - and we now are very aware that some of the smartest minds in the world belong to Christians. Debate over Side: Without a doubt.
-1
points
After reading several biographies about Einstein, the reason he didn't care for quantum mechanics is that it doesn't fit the typical definition of science that was accepted then. Science was based upon observation and calculation, not speculation. He thought all of science should fall within certain parameters, the reason he worked on a "Unified Field Theory". Side: Without a doubt.
-9
points
-9
points
In my experience, atheists "rule" just about every online debate/argument forum. Part of this may be due to a technical competence bias, as atheists tend to be much more technologically literate than other groups of people. Outside of this most religious folks don't know or care enough about their own religion to have it stand up to any level of scrutiny so when and if they join such a debate group, they usually don't last long. Side: Who said that?
-10
points
The debates here don't prove atheist have any technologically literacy, in many cases in proves the opposite. When one is presented a definition and yet somehow they believe it to mean something other than what it is defined as, I call that to be illiterate. Side: Without a doubt.
The debates here don't prove atheist have any technologically literacy It certainly proves that you don't, nor any actual literacy. When one is presented a definition and yet somehow they believe it to mean something other than what it is defined as, I call that to be illiterate. Defined by whom? Scientists define theory as: n., pl., -ries. 1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. Side: Who said that?
-9
points
I hold an advanced degree in science (applied Social Psychology if you were wondering) and yes I have spoken with many scientists, nor would I have a need to ask as to the meaning of theory as it applies to science, as it is well understood. Your High School science classes should have already covered this, but assuming you didn't do to well in High School biology and physics classes you could spend half a minute to simply look it up instead of making incredulous statements out of ignorance. http://www.answers.com/topic/ A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena. Side: Who said that?
1
point
"I hold an advanced degree in science".....etc. Good for you. How much did you have pay for this? A boughten piece of paper and your the worlds biggest expert, incredible. I also have a degree in Psychology and it didn't come from an on-line university. Mine came from Ohio State University. Side: Without a doubt.
I also have a degree in Psychology and it didn't come from an on-line university. Mine came from Ohio State University. You're full of shit. You didn't even know that the term theory held a different meaning within science, something even a freshman with a major of any of the sciences would know. You have made numerous statements indicating you lack any education beyond Secondary school. Side: Who said that?
0
points
I know what theory means to you and to the rest of the world, it means more to you then them. Because one disagrees with you, you deem them beneath you. How high and might are you? I'm here to create controversy and play havoc on those who rely on others to do all their thinking for them. You are nothing more than a mere hamster with whom I toy with, a study of sub-human behavior. My colleges are still debating which chemical imbalance you have, not me. Chemical Psychology bores me, I'm more into Behavior Psychology. I'm convinced you lack self-esteem and that is why you are so determined to display arrogance here. This is the only place where you feel safe enough to do so. Side: Without a doubt.
No, you don't know that is the point. You were under the impression that theory had one generally understood meaning unaware that it held a unique technical definition within science. Don't bullshit me, you don't have a Psychology degree from Ohio State. Thewayitis: "The purpose of a degree is to get someone to throw their money away on a piece of paper." Because one disagrees with you, you deem them beneath you. I deem you beneath me because you're a hypocritical asshat, who does precisely this in regards to atheists. I'm here to create controversy and play havoc on those who rely on others to do all their thinking for them. No one person can be an expert in every field, this is why rational people rely on what the experts in those fields have to say. My colleges are still debating which chemical imbalance you have, not me. Is that why you so horribly misspelled colleagues? My guess is that you have no colleagues, that you took a few classes a long time ago but fell woefully short of acquiring any degree. Maybe you couldn't finish because you ran out of money, that would certainly explain the quote above. Side: Who said that?
0
points
As I have said time and time again, the biggest critics of education are often the educated. As far the misspelling of colleagues goes, I really don't give a rats ass about it. Someone that continues to pick on spelling rarely has anything else to offer and so they make a mountain out of a mole hill. Side: Without a doubt.
1
point
|
-8
points
Of coarse I do. All those atheist that post here. Side: Who said that?
-9
points
Have a PHD in Physics? Then how do you know that God didn't create the world? Do you have a PhD in Physics? Then how do you know that God -did- create the world? It does not take an advanced degree to pontificate the existence of God. It however does take a degree to make a medical diagnosis, preferably one in the medical sector. Side: Without a doubt.
-8
points
Like one has to have a medical degree to diagnose someone choking, has a broken bone, a gun shot, etc. The diagnosis is simple, the cure may require one more skilled. While I might dispute some of your examples, your topic was specifically about schizophrenia. Unless you want to argue that you have the credentials to make such a diagnosis. Side: Without a doubt.
-9
points
I simply read the definition and observed the atheist here. No, you didn't. You actively made an accusation that atheists suffer from a disorder. I rebuked you for the accusation. Do you believe I'm out to get you? Now don't be paranoid, it is one of the symptoms. To presume that I think you are "out to get me" asserts a certain level of competence I do not think you posses. I have been to war, what would I possibly have to fear from you? Side: Without a doubt.
-9
points
Read into it what you want to I have. However you have yet to justify your accusations. You decry the mistreatment from atheists, but everyday atheists are mistreated merely because of what they don't believe. Young people cast from their homes because they don't share the creeds of their fathers. Denied promotions. Bombasted by radio and television pundits. Ridiculed by family and peers. It is no wonder this prejudice causes so many to hide their disbelief. The few that openly admit their atheism then become a target, and so in response they bear a sharpened tongue, only re-affirming the stereotype that atheists are angry, which then becomes more fuel for prejudice. So it is no wonder that one of the last free anonymous frontiers (the internet) they hold their words like a weapon. Poised to dethrone bigotry. Side: Without a doubt.
-8
points
-9
points
Christians were persecuted by the Romans for about 200 years, but there is at least 1,000 years of bloody religious conflicts amongst different groups of Christians in Europe. English civil war Spanish Inquisition Hussite wars (also called Bohemian Wars) 30 Years war Protestant reformation Scottish Reformation Suppression of Eastern orthodoxy King of Denmark's Conversion Albigensian Crusade The persecution of Christians by Jews and Romans pales in comparison to the persecution of Christians from other Christians. Side: Without a doubt.
-1
points
Prove to me God ordered these things done and not man. I never said he did. I just said that Christians have been the biggest persecutors of Christians, which is historically provable. The fact that you are so quick to jump to what I can only assume is a No True Scotsman fallacy shows how ill-conceived your argument is. That you think I should prove that God ordered these Christians to do what they did, tells me you are incapable of meaningfully and objectively arguing anything about Christianity whether it is a statistical fact or not. Side: Without a doubt.
-8
points
-9
points
Theories, in science, are not facts but rather the explanation of those facts. Your understanding that scientific theories are just "guesses" is false. For an explanation to even be considered a "theory" takes a tremendous amount of time, work and validation through the scientific rigors. In science Theories are the strongest form of explanation. Side: Who said that?
-9
points
Well, as tired of it you are, Words have both general definitions and technical definitions when applied to specific trades or professions. There are in fact dictionaries and encyclopedias devoted to specific trades or professions. If you are talking about theories in a scientific context, then I'm going to use the scientific definition. The same way the word "Scratch" acquires a specific meaning when you are talking about billiards. Side: Who said that?
-9
points
Eugene C. Scott, Ph.D Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education. "Most lay people think that theories are guesses or hunches or something that you don't have to take terribly seriously, that they're not such a big deal. It's Completely opposite in science. What a lot of, unfortunately, textbooks lead people to misunderstand is that a really good theory grows up into a law. As if theories are refined and become laws, and laws are more important than theories. This is the source of a lot of confusion...Theories to scientists mean EXPLANATION and these are logical constructs of facts, tested hypotheses, of laws, of all kinds of stuff that taken together and put in a logical descriptive fashion help us to understand some kind of natural phenomena." Side: Who said that?
How come you never responded to this? Who said they use this version of the Word? Eugene C. Scott, Ph.D Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education. "Most lay people think that theories are guesses or hunches or something that you don't have to take terribly seriously, that they're not such a big deal. It's Completely opposite in science. What a lot of, unfortunately, textbooks lead people to misunderstand is that a really good theory grows up into a law. As if theories are refined and become laws, and laws are more important than theories. This is the source of a lot of confusion...Theories to scientists mean EXPLANATION and these are logical constructs of facts, tested hypotheses, of laws, of all kinds of stuff that taken together and put in a logical descriptive fashion help us to understand some kind of natural phenomena." Side: Who said that?
Schizophrenia is caused due to severe background and past. Even genes play a role. Also inheritance. Anyone and anybody can be Schizophrenic. If your an Atheist and your Schizophrenic it's a co-incidence. Neither can dis-belief in God cause Schizophrenia nor can Schizophrenia be the reason you refuse to believe in God! Side: Who said that?
-8
points
Eriwgan did not say that God exists, simply that he is a fictional character who happens to exemplify the attributes of a psychopath. God's psychopathic nature is shown through his actions. 1 - Genesis 6:7 - God floods the earth 2 - Genesis 19:24 - Destroyed Sodom & Gomorrah 3 - Exodus 12:29 - Killed every innocent Egyptian firstborn 4 - Deuteronomy 3:22, Judges 20:18 - 21, 2Samuel 22:35, 1Chronicles 5:18-22 - God commands and assists in wars 5 - Leviticus 20:13 - Commands death to gays 6 - Exodus 22:18 - Commands death to witches 7 - Leviticus 25:44-46 - condones slavery 8 - Numbers 31: 1-54 - condones rape and pedophilia 9 - Genesis 3:16 - condones sexism Side: Who said that?
-8
points
Every abhorrent passage is "out of context", or so I am told by modern day Christians. I think these passages are just a testament (no pun intended) to the archaic and perhaps barbaric times in which these words were written. Which is why for me, it is so alarming when people take them too literally. I think there is a lot that can be learned from the bible, and it is an interesting work from a literary and historical perspective. Side: Who said that?
-9
points
Clearly you don't know what sanity is, how is using direct quotes from God an extreme? They aren't taken out of context, I'm sorry but if your God tells you to kill witches and gays, or to rape the virgin daughters of their slain enemies then he is a psychopath. Side: Who said that?
-9
points
Not that you'll listen, but pretend for a second your premise is right. Wouldn't god already understand how it would be interpreted by man, and so explain himself better? Either this god is a horrible judge of character or an ass... or it was just a few people using superstition to gain power. I'm guessing the last. Side: Who said that?
1
point
Wild E. Coyote super genius strikes again. If an artist is inspired by someone, can this person correctly interrupt what the painting means? This person may have only inspired the painter to paint, and not the contents of the painting. I suggest you use a dictionary before defining words on your own, this way you may look semi-intelligent. Side: Without a doubt.
1
point
I am an atheist, free thinker and could be scholar and I have SchizoAffective disorder. Having S.A. doesn't make you into an atheist, nor does being religious at the same time. Being an atheist is a life choice. Its the choice of not believing in the unbelievable and listening to things like modern science, philosophy and other things. To be honest, I have had the opportunity to know quite of few Christians, and Muslims that have mental issues. So I would say that it doesn't matter what personal beliefs you have, its the genes you were born with that matters the most. Side: Who said that?
|
