Written by Zombie on 12.11.2010 at 22:40

Or your boobs didnt happen

No pix! So I guess that means my boobs are imaginary then?

@Reza: Im not religious, so Id be going to hell anyway, though sometimes I wonder if Im there already. lol

Atheism for me.

-man of science-

EDIT: Oh and what is this relation I'm noticing between metallers and their lack of religious beliefs? Wonder what kind of experiment I could design to find out what the reason for this is xD

IMO Angelic Storm has got em huge sexy ones!!

I love it when a thread about something as unimportant as religion gets hijacked by a bunch of people who'd rather talk about boobies.

Written by [user id=107773] on 13.11.2010 at 17:20

Atheism for me.

-man of science-

Atheism is not the result of scientific progress and there's nothing scientific about being an atheist. Richard Dawkins once made the serious mistake of saying that certitude of atheism is unscientific, when in fact it's non-scientific, has nothing to do with science at all. Same goes for theism. Just thought I'd point that out.

Written by Angelic Storm on 13.11.2010 at 01:06

No pix! So I guess that means my boobs are imaginary then?

@Reza: Im not religious, so Id be going to hell anyway, though sometimes I wonder if Im there already. lol

Not necessarily, if you die in battle, then we'll meet in Valhalla. If I die in battle too, that is.

Written by [user id=105293] on 14.11.2010 at 01:28

Written by [user id=107773] on 13.11.2010 at 17:20

Atheism for me.

-man of science-

Atheism is not the result of scientific progress and there's nothing scientific about being an atheist. Richard Dawkins once made the serious mistake of saying that certitude of atheism is unscientific, when in fact it's non-scientific, has nothing to do with science at all. Same goes for theism. Just thought I'd point that out.

You see, what you did there was NOT scientific. You assumed that because I said that I was a 'man-of-science' and atheist at the same time, that my conviction [atheism] was the reason for my being a man of science, or vice versa. That's called inferring causation: NOT ALLOWED IN SCIENCE

It's very possible that I could have absolutely no religious belief/other conviction and STILL be a 'man-of-science', so you aren't proving any points to me mate.

@ Luneth: actually it seems like you're trying to get around what he said, coz if you didnt mean to correlate science to atheism then why would you even mention that you're a 'man of science' in the first place? and in a Religion thread ?
i believe ErnilEnNaur's interpretation of what you said was inevitable. couldn't possible be comprehended in any other way.

Written by [user id=107773] on 14.11.2010 at 17:41

You see, what you did there was NOT scientific. You assumed that because I said that I was a 'man-of-science' and atheist at the same time, that my conviction [atheism] was the reason for my being a man of science, or vice versa. That's called inferring causation: NOT ALLOWED IN SCIENCE

It's very possible that I could have absolutely no religious belief/other conviction and STILL be a 'man-of-science', so you aren't proving any points to me mate.

If your atheism has nothing to do with you being a man of science, then why post something so utterly irrelavent? It would be like saying:

Atheism for me.

- Not a pedophile -

Lol

Atheism for me.

- I like fish sticks -

Written by [user id=105293] on 14.11.2010 at 01:33
Not necessarily, if you die in battle, then we'll meet in Valhalla. If I die in battle too, that is.

Haha! Im certain I will die in battle, so Valhalla it is. Itd be great if the Blind Guardian song played when you arrive there... lol

@Atheism: Atheism has nothing to do with science. I think the only role science plays in it, is most atheists don't believe in a diety because there is no physical proof that could substantiate one's existence. So I would say that science inadvertently supports an atheist stance, but atheism technically anyway, has nothing to do with science.

@Himann: I do not...

Written by Zombie on 14.11.2010 at 18:51

@ Luneth: actually it seems like you're trying to get around what he said, coz if you didnt mean to correlate science to atheism then why would you even mention that you're a 'man of science' in the first place? and in a Religion thread ?
i believe ErnilEnNaur's interpretation of what you said was inevitable. couldn't possible be comprehended in any other way.

True.

@ErnilEnNaur: It does bear some relevance, I can say that I'm a 'man of science' therefore that's why I don't believe in god...but the reason for my being an atheist could be completely different [and IS completely different]. Stating that I'm a 'man of science' in a religious thread...to me...seems like a pretty reasonable thing to say...if all we're doing is in fact, discussing beliefs

I dont think Science and Religion particularly have to be linked. You could be a man of science and yet still believe in the existence of a higher power.

@Angelic Storm, suuuuure..!!

Written by Zombie on 15.11.2010 at 08:05

Lol

Atheism for me.

- I like fish sticks -

Yeah, I hate those pesky creationists who claim fish are evil because they might have survived the global flood due to being fish.

Written by Angelic Storm on 15.11.2010 at 12:23

@Atheism: Atheism has nothing to do with science. I think the only role science plays in it, is most atheists don't believe in a diety because there is no physical proof that could substantiate one's existence. So I would say that science inadvertently supports an atheist stance, but atheism technically anyway, has nothing to do with science.

Certain scientific theories may have anti-theological implications (theory of biological evolution), but even that I am not sure of. Science studies the natural i.e. material world, so it makes no comment on the supernatural i.e. non-material.

Written by [user id=105293] on 15.11.2010 at 13:21

Written by Angelic Storm on 15.11.2010 at 12:23

@Atheism: Atheism has nothing to do with science. I think the only role science plays in it, is most atheists don't believe in a diety because there is no physical proof that could substantiate one's existence. So I would say that science inadvertently supports an atheist stance, but atheism technically anyway, has nothing to do with science.

Certain scientific theories may have anti-theological implications (theory of biological evolution), but even that I am not sure of. Science studies the natural i.e. material world, so it makes no comment on the supernatural i.e. non-material.

Certain scientific theories have anti-religious views. Theology is a science you know lol. That aside you're right, science observes the natural world, and simply put, you can't observe what you can't see.

Written by [user id=107773] on 15.11.2010 at 12:42

@ErnilEnNaur: It does bear some relevance, I can say that I'm a 'man of science' therefore that's why I don't believe in god...

You can say that, but it doesn't follow. It's like saying I am an Estonian, that's why I don't believe in God. Science can't make anyone an atheist, it's just that simple.

Written by [user id=105293] on 15.11.2010 at 14:03

Written by [user id=107773] on 15.11.2010 at 12:42

@ErnilEnNaur: It does bear some relevance, I can say that I'm a 'man of science' therefore that's why I don't believe in god...

You can say that, but it doesn't follow. It's like saying I am an Estonian, that's why I don't believe in God. Science can't make anyone an atheist, it's just that simple.

What are you talking about? The context determines the relevance mate; look at my post above to see why it 'follows'

It's actually this simple:

-I'm a man of science- therefore I believe in what I can observe and see, not what I cannot see
-I'm an atheist- therefore I don't believe in the existence of deities

Where here does it say, 'oh because you're an atheist, you have to be a man of science'? It doesn't say/imply/suggest it at all. Saying you're an estonian therefore don't believe in god is just stupid, and makes no sense and kind of makes my point so much clearer. You don't believe in god because you don't. Not because of the label that preceeds you (estonian, man of science etc). Isn't that easy to understand?

I could just as easily be a man of science and belive in god, I could be a theologist trying to give scientific evidence of the existence of god. I can't make this any easier to understand man...

Written by [user id=105293] on 15.11.2010 at 13:21
Certain scientific theories may have anti-theological implications (theory of biological evolution), but even that I am not sure of. Science studies the natural i.e. material world, so it makes no comment on the supernatural i.e. non-material.

While that is technically true, science is still anti-religion by default. It cant make a comment on something that has no physical proof of it's existance. So just by science having to remain mute on the subject adds weight to the notion that god doesn't exist. Although science in and of itself isn't anti religion, it certainly adds more weight to the view that god doesnt exist, and by default, rubbishing religion. For example, if you believe in biological evolution, which is something that can be backed up by at least some scientific evidence, then you cannot believe the religious versions of how man was created. So science casts doubt on religious explanations for things without ever being explicity anti-religion.

@Himann: Hey, its true!

By the way, whose up for some lamb meat ? .. The Muslim Feast is tomorrow and Egypt is turning into a slaughterhouse .. 'sacrificed' sheep everywhere.

A scene from last year's Feast,

PS: It doesnt get any brutal than this , and also doesnt get unhealthier lol

No Zombie, I would not be up for that! It looks and sounds horrible, like something out of the dark ages. Just one more thing to convince me that religions are horrid. lol

@ Viggo: lol yeah, madonna, the queen of blood-rituals... and they just ignore that and say metal is satanic (well, some metal IS satanic, but not all of it)

@ Angelic storm: sure ? you dont want a lamb-meat sandwich ? lol
btw, i took this photo while INSIDE my car driving in the street (you can tell by the side mirror) ... so, you can imagine how it is, blood runs down the streets -literally- and goat and sheep heads scattered everywhere and the stench is unbearable, its like the worst black metal + gore death metal video you've ever seen combined but in real life ! lol
actually, if carcass are reunited and ever think of making a new album i might sell them this photo to be their album cover

Written by Zombie on 16.11.2010 at 01:08
@ Angelic storm: sure ? you dont want a lamb-meat sandwich ? lol
btw, i took this photo while INSIDE my car driving in the street (you can tell by the side mirror) ... so, you can imagine how it is, blood runs down the streets -literally- and goat and sheep heads scattered everywhere and the stench is unbearable, its like the worst black metal + gore death metal video you've ever seen combined but in real life ! lol
actually, if carcass are reunited and ever think of making a new album i might sell them this photo to be their album cover

Yes, I am very sure! Egypt used to be my number one place Id love to visit. but the more you say, the less I want to go there lol Really, that sounds horrid, and such things shouldnt still be happening in this day and age.

That would only work if Carcass make a new album AND decided to go back to their gore themed lyrics. If its another "Heartwork" or "Swansong", then that photo would be useless for their album cover.

Written by [user id=107773] on 15.11.2010 at 14:02

Certain scientific theories have anti-religious views. Theology is a science you know lol. That aside you're right, science observes the natural world, and simply put, you can't observe what you can't see.

First of all, scientific theories don't have "views" on religions, they have views on the natural world. You can point out anti-religious implications in a theory, but those implications are not themself part of science. Second, purely philosophical theology is a branch of philosophy, not science and the so-called natural theology as it was labelled by Paley is nothing but Christian apologetics, also not science. Third, science does study objects, which are by definition unobservable such as black holes. It's not what you can't see that science doesn't study, it's that which has no reality in the material.

Written by Angelic Storm on 15.11.2010 at 16:27

While that is technically true, science is still anti-religion by default. It cant make a comment on something that has no physical proof of it's existance.

No. Making no comment on religion means it is non-religious by default.

Quote:

So just by science having to remain mute on the subject adds weight to the notion that god doesn't exist.

No again. You say yourself that science has to remain mute, that is not speak against or for the existence of supernatural entities.

Quote:

Although science in and of itself isn't anti religion, it certainly adds more weight to the view that god doesnt exist, and by default, rubbishing religion.

Science doesn't add weight to either side of the argument. It can't, because it's mute on the subject.

Quote:

For example, if you believe in biological evolution, which is something that can be backed up by at least some scientific evidence, then you cannot believe the religious versions of how man was created. So science casts doubt on religious explanations for things without ever being explicity anti-religion.

Creation myths can, and have been, interpreted in many ways. It is entirely possible to believe God created man via evolution. I don't see why he would create life in a way that made his existence unnecessary, but whatever. Point is, looking at the theory of evolution and drawing any theological or anti-theological implications is already completely outside the realm of science.

Written by [user id=105293] on 16.11.2010 at 08:09
No. Making no comment on religion means it is non-religious by default.

Nope. Besides, you're more or less saying that all scientists do not ever give views on religion, which is completely false.

Quote:
No again. You say yourself that science has to remain mute, that is not speak against or for the existence of supernatural entities.

Absolute nonsense. Its the REASON why it has to remain mute that adds weight to the atheistic arguement.

Quote:
Science doesn't add weight to either side of the argument. It can't, because it's mute on the subject.

Again, complete nonsense. It is mute on one side of the argument only because you cannot study or analyse what isnt there. Science can be used to at least partially back up one side of the arguement, whereas it cannot be used to back up any religious arguement. So on the contrary, it does add weight to non-believers arguements. It is mute on the subject, but its WHY its mute on the subject that adds weight to atheist's arguements against the existence of a god.

Quote:
Creation myths can, and have been, interpreted in many ways. It is entirely possible to believe God created man via evolution. I don't see why he would create life in a way that made his existence unnecessary, but whatever. Point is, looking at the theory of evolution and drawing any theological or anti-theological implications is already completely outside the realm of science.

No one of the christian religion can believe in biological evolution without contradicting the version of how man came to be that's in the bible. So it is at least, not possible for christians to believe in biological evolution without it contradicting with their own faith. Unless you can be a christian whilst dismissing some parts of the bible as false. But the fact remains, you cannot believe in the bible's version of how man was made, and biological evolution. This is the reason why many schools that cater specifically to christian beleifs will not allow biological evolution theories to be taught in them. This wouldnt happen if you could believe in the bible's version of man's creation AND biological evolution. The two things contradict each other, therefore it is not possible to believe in both versions of events. I am not an expert in all religions, so Im sure it is possible for some religions to believe in god via evolution. But it is not possible for christians to if they believe the bible's version of events.

Most atheists are the way they are because theological theories cannot be proven, in any way. The fact that it is not possible for science to study such things, does indeed, add weight to the arguements of people who would require some sort of physical proof before believing in a god. This is the reason why theological theories, and religious viewpoints are classed as "faiths", and "beliefs". It is having faith in the existence of something that has no physical evidence to support such a thing. The burden of proof lies with the believer, not the non-believer, and in this instance, science (at least partially) backs up the atheist even if it is not expilcitly anti-religion.

I wonder which person is into shamanism

Written by Kennoth on 16.11.2010 at 11:16

I wonder which person is into shamanism

What?

Take a look at the poll results