Latest ads
-
Colombo Red Hat Certified System Administrator (RHCSA) - RHEL 10- Sanjeewani95
- Updated:
-
NURSING , CAREGIVER , HOTEL & BEAUTY COURSES- IVA Para Medical Campus
- Updated:
-
Handmade Character Soft Toys Peppa Pig Family- anil1961
- Updated:
-
Video Content Creator
- pramukag
- Updated:
-
QA Engineer Intern
- pramukag
- Updated:
Aethist corner of Elakiri
- Thread starter Aethist
- Start date
First of all I did not say that science is a total failure
But trying to explain every phenomena using science is ridiculous...
there are things science still can't prove (google unsolved mysteries)
atheist spend their whole lives discussing about god & his existence (I'm a theravada buddhist)
Science is a mixture of different models which are formed in order to explain diffferent phenomenas.
science is constantly changing..you can see this very clearly if you are interested in quantum physics
believing in nothing is very dangerous but not as dangerous as believing you would be rewarded if you commit an inhuman act in god's name
I too believe that science will explain everything happening around us someday,but that someday is not in near future
I've already indirectly answered those questions in my last post, but here I go again.
Q1 - Both parties, since no one has a defined way to prove it.
Q2 - It should be proven by the person claiming that his father turned in to hulk. Because that statement can simply be checked for its validity assuming the other party has access to the father.
If Atheism is majority of time so close to Agnosticism, why coin a new term? To me Agnosticism has a very defined and transparent meaning to it than Atheism. Its really simple. If there is no way to validate something then that something shouldn't be argued about, if it can be tested but no evidence was found about it, then that something is a lie. If that something that claimed to have happened, has material evidence, then it might have really happened.
Atheism is very much like agnosticism but goes one step further, further away from logic that is. The difference to me is that Atheists seems to be arguing about things that has no way of proving while agnostics regard such things as pointless to argue about.
yes exactly. I still cannot understand how a microprocessor does all those things. (can google and see but doesnt make sense) Like this i can imagine how our ancestors may have thought about Tv and Radio.
Science is the nature of things nothing alien or nothing sudda brought up to invade our precious country. (well some people think so)
Simply just think macho,if our ancestors had no idea about physics,maths would they be able to build sigiriya,ruvan wali seya,old tanks etc ??????
Simply just think macho,if our ancestors had no idea about physics,maths would they be able to build sigiriya,ruvan wali seya,old tanks etc ??????
The construction technique used were practiced using trial and error method. There weren't any Ruwanwali Seya that just sprung up. Ruwanweli Seya was build because we have perfected the art of building small stupas. The same goes for Sigiriya.
Our ancestors didn't build airplanes, nuclear missiles or space crafts so there knowledge on physics were pretty much simpler than today. But they were somewhat excelled in Mathematics.
Science is a mixture of different models which are formed in order to explain diffferent phenomenas.
science is constantly changing..you can see this very clearly if you are interested in quantum physics
believing in nothing is very dangerous but not as dangerous as believing you would be rewarded if you commit an inhuman act in god's name
I too believe that science will explain everything happening around us someday,but that someday is not in near future
Even Lord Buddha believed in nothing.
Why coin a new term? I am not entirely sure what the answer to that is. My guess is that people (both believers and non-believers) historically used the terms interchangeably so much that the distinction between the two became blurred.
What Atheism / Agnoticisim means to you is not relevant. Atheism is NOT defined so narrowly, as you would have seen if you had spent even a couple of minutes reading up on it. It's a fact, there is no arguing about it.
Q1.
No, both parties do not have the burden of proof. You don't have to take my word for it, ask this on any philosophy forum or from anyone else who actually understands logic/philosophy. The party asserting a claim has the burden of proof. The party presenting a new or remarkable idea has the burden of proof.
'I don't believe what you are saying' - NOT a positive assertion or claim - NO burden of proof
'What you are saying is false' - Burden of proof to prove it is false.
An unconvinced person does NOT have a burden of proof.
I say that I had a threesome with Kim Kardashian, Selena Gomez and Emma Watson last night. What's that? You don't believe me? Tough luck, you'd better give proof that it didn't happen!
See how ridiculous that is?
Do you really think that you have a burden of proof if you don't believe your friend when he says that Obama gave him a BJ last night? Seriously? You have to prove it if you don't believe him?
Come on man.
Q2.
What I am asking you is
'Are the people who don't believe your father turned into a hulk following a religion?'
Yes or No?
Last edited:
a great reply mate, but dont waste ur time and energy to reply these nut cases. No matter how many evidence they see, they won't think freely as they've blinded by their thousands of years old religious scriptures
Thanks mate.
Yeah you are right it is high time I left this thread and stopped wasting my time.
Again I'm not here to argue about philosophical stuff (totally out of my realm too) or answer questions on behalf of other religious people, but rather to discover what Atheism really is. Since no one here has given a clear cut definition to it. I rest my case.
Let's say few people are waiting in a room, and there is a door to EXIT. Who ever exit can not enter back,and people also aware that , no one enter back from that door.
after few days one guy saying he saw a dream, and out of this room there are two places. one is good the other one bad,,,,and if you need to go to good place you have to do few things,,,,,
after few days another person saying some thing similar to this..............
If you know what I mean
after few days one guy saying he saw a dream, and out of this room there are two places. one is good the other one bad,,,,and if you need to go to good place you have to do few things,,,,,
after few days another person saying some thing similar to this..............
If you know what I mean
so care to explain about how water was transported up and down from sigiriya ??? was that also done through trial & error ?? care to expalin about stargate in isurumuniya that is identical to stargates found in other parts in the worlds ?? there was a video done by IESL where an engineer discuss about the technology used in old stupas and compare them to today's technology..watch it bro n see for yourself
what I'm saying is macho science can't explain everything just yet,but that day will come someday...
Last edited:
so care to explain about how water was transported up and down from sigiriya ??? was that also done through trial & error ?? care to expalin about stargate in isurumuniya that is identical to stargates found in other parts in the worlds ?? there was a video done by IESL where an engineer discuss about the technology used in old stupas and compare them to today's technology..watch it bro n see for yourself
what I'm saying is macho science can't explain everything just yet,but that day will come someday...
Of course it was done through trial and error. The water is transported up and down in Sigiriya using the mere pressure of the water. Our ancestors knew about water and it's pressure for centuries before Sigiriya (through irrigation and dam building). It was or ancestors who had built the Biso-Kotuwa. They might have perfected the art of it during that time.
That stargate thing in Isurumuniya is a farce. Besides do you know that the place we called Isurumuniya is actually Wessagiriya?
Coming to the point that thing we called stargate is something we have come up with, there is no original inscription to say "this is an object to jump through stars". So I don't believe that it is something like that. And I have not seen other similar stargates of such kind elsewhere. Care to show me some?There is no magic in our ancient constructions. So don't buy any hocus pocus theories about them.
Just like majority of god believers waiting for the judgement day
Science is the best tool we have to understand nature.
Not even Pascal's wager?
Is that the way you spell atheist?
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Thus the default position to hold is agnosticism NOT atheism.
And fyi the argument used in the OP is highly circular. You claim that the burden of proof lies with the believers....and then ask us to prove God using the scientific method. Otherwise our claim is, by default, false.
You don't need an Einstein to tell you that is circular reasoning. You CLAIM that a claim remains false unless proved by the scientific method. Now you are making a claim by simply stating this.
Your claim is this: Claims are false unless proved by the scientific method.
Now you have to prove your claim. And use the scientific method to prove this.
In otherwords you've got to prove the scientific method using the scientific method.
It's impossible. So argument is circular. FAIL.
If you don't understand why mahinda maama can't contest for a further term legally, then you won't understand this post too. It needs brains and critical reasoning to understand.
Is that the way you spell atheist?
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Thus the default position to hold is agnosticism NOT atheism.
And fyi the argument used in the OP is highly circular. You claim that the burden of proof lies with the believers....and then ask us to prove God using the scientific method. Otherwise our claim is, by default, false.
You don't need an Einstein to tell you that is circular reasoning. You CLAIM that a claim remains false unless proved by the scientific method. Now you are making a claim by simply stating this.
Your claim is this: Claims are false unless proved by the scientific method.
Now you have to prove your claim. And use the scientific method to prove this.
In otherwords you've got to prove the scientific method using the scientific method.
It's impossible. So argument is circular. FAIL.
If you don't understand why mahinda maama can't contest for a further term legally, then you won't understand this post too. It needs brains and critical reasoning to understand.
Similar threads
