Saturday, April 14, 2012

Shining intellect of YouTube 0

Person 1:
I hope you guys know WHAT JESUS DID TO SAVE OUR LIVES with that cross. Read the bible and check it out.
Thanks, that's all.
(And I dare ANYONE to cuss or insult me on this post.)

Person 2:
Shut up, cunt.

Person 3:
Typical Atheist response.

Person 2:
Atheist responses are in general very intelligent and has a good point, so I take your comment as a compliment. Thank you! :)

Person 2:
Not even close. Most atheist only demonstrate their ignorance of science, and then when shown the truth resort to name calling. The name calling part is what I was referring to as typical. Your inability to comprehend the obvious is also typical of atheist.

Yet you argue that by generalizing an entire group. While his name-calling wasn't needed, it was meant to be a joke, a defiance of the original comment. I don't know where you come across the "ignorance of science" part. By "comprehend the obvious", I assume you're talking theologically. If God were that obvious, there wouldn't be such a strong scientific refutation of his existence. If you have faith, that's your right. But don't try to say that God is an evident truth.

Person 2:
Science hasn't been able to refute shit. You would know this if you weren't so ignorant of science. Most scientist realize it's impossible to disprove the existence of a God. Show me the theory that dis-proves the existence of God. You can't. So like I said most atheist are ignorant of real science. They just like to use it as an excuse to not believe. Some things just can't be proven or dis-proven using science, like the conscious or subconscious for instance.

Maybe refute was a poor choice of wording. It's impossible to disprove God, in the same fashion it's impossible to disprove the ethereal pink dog sitting next to me. Our scientific knowledge puts God at about the same probability as garden fairies. An excuse not to believe? Sure, call it what you will. If seeing the moon is an excuse to believe it exists, your definition/hypothesis is sound. Many scientists are atheists, does that make them ignorant of science? Not really.

Person 2:
Your right, many scientist are atheist, but the majority of atheist aren't scientist, and the majority of atheist aren't even intelligent enough to comprehend these scientific theories anyways. Meaning their knowledge and acceptance of science is based on faith. A faith that puts many religious peoples faith to shame. So while you put your faith in that which you don't fully understand, I'll put my faith in the prophecies that predicted this current situation.

I contest and am slightly offended by your insistence that atheists as a group have no clue what they're talking about.
Science, by definition is evidence-based, not faith-based. Faith is belief in something without evidence.
Science does put many religions to shame, but that's a point in my favor.
The whole point of science is that we do understand it. You make no sense in this argument.
What current situation? Most of the come-to-pass prophecies in the Bible seem self-fulfilling.

Person 2:
Yes science is evidence based. But the point is that most atheist that I have come across rarely understand the theories in their entirety, and never will since a humans ability to know the entirety of all knowledge is limited. Look I accept most scientific theories, but I'm not about to pretend I fully comprehend all of them, and you are a liar if you claim that you do. You Know/understand Quantum physics? Microbiology? Do you know/understand every Mathematics proof? No? Then how do you know?

I'd tell you what Biblical evidence I have that would suggest that modern knowledge is predicted in the Bible and what we would do with this knowledge, but it would be wasted on you. It would be like explaining physics to somebody that hasn't even learned to add and subtract. Maybe read Revelations and think about what I said if you wish to see.

I don't need to know every conceivable fact to form an educated decision. Don't act like you perfectly know all of the ins-and-outs of theology.
I don't know, but the nonexistence of god is so very much more likely than god.

To your other comment.
That sir, is a cop-out. I've read Revelations and it's so metaphorical and hazed that pulling a prophecy out of them [it] and calling it truth is disingenuous. Considering things like tsunamis and earthquakes signs of the end times is ridiculous.

That's where the discussion ends.  These are the kinds of intellects we're dealing with.

No comments: