Why Athiests Should be Kicked Out of America

[rootbear75]

question, i see that some parts of the bible have been scientifically proven true,

 

but has anything in the bible been scientifically proven FALSE?

Edited September 27, 2007 by rootbear75

[all_shall_perish]

for that to carry any weight it depends on what was actually proven true. if they proved jesus rose from the dead, then ok, we're getting somewhere. if they proved a river existed where they said it did, then who cares?

 

and to help to re-iterate my last post in a more philosophical manner. do you have "scientific" proof that you're not dreaming right now? no, so you can't p!@#$%^&* judgment on whether or not you are dreaming either way due to a lack of evidence. This literally means that you don't know, as in you can't say anything about the conclusion only the hypothesis.

Edited September 27, 2007 by all_shall_perish

[rootbear75]

actually, you can tell im not dreaming by the brain waves that i am emitting

[all_shall_perish]

that actually isn't proof at all, those brain waves only tell other people that you're not dreaming. but how do you know they aren't just part of your dream. how can you tell the brain waves themselves aren't part of your dream? Edited September 27, 2007 by all_shall_perish

[SeVeR]

[all_shall_perish]

i have no issue with debate, but only when it is rationale and not just slinging worthless "facts" and mud around.

 

the major point of numero 4 wasn't so much that people shouldn't give a hoot what everyone else thinks, but rather how does what they believe effect you? in most cases it doesn't effect you at all. however, i can see how it is contradicting.

 

2. I say that if you cannot dismiss the possibility that uncertainty is the only truth then truth cannot be known because this statement that encomp!@#$%^&*es all truths must also be uncertain. One must conclude that there is only one truth, that we can never know a truth with utter certainty. Is this true? I don't know.

 

this is essentially a form of what is called skepticism. that skepticism says that for something to be considered "true" or to be a "fact" it must have been established by other previously "true" statements or "facts". In turn, those statements must then be "true" or "factual". This cycle continues on for an indefinite time leading to the inability to know anything. However, people would find it hard to function if we couldn't assume things were true, so as a social construct we simply agree that statements are true like "1 + 1 = 2" and "the gr!@#$%^&* is green." I agree mostly with skepticism but out of convenience it can't be taken too seriously too often.