Atheists are amusing

[bluebird]

Are you talking about stuff like the big bang? Because there's solid proof behind that as well and can still be confirmed today with a really strong telescope.

Point being, science can be confirmed again and again. It's not built on faith. Religion is, which is fine with me. People can believe in magic and angles as long as they don't push that belief on others. At least not until they prove these beliefs.

Strong telescope kulaha . Why don't you buy this strong telescope and tell me what you see that proves this theory of yours that isn't just confirmation bias . Science can be confirmed correct my point was who confirms it not whether or not it's being confirmed.

 

[WiilWaalan]

He claimed there were no other humans, you claim there were. According to the atheists doctrine, the burden is on the one who claims the existence is it not? The burden of proof is on you or whoever came up with the notion. Is there evidence for it or not? Why are you trying to shift it to him?

You don't understand the point i'm making. My claim that there were other humans living at the time is not my proposition, its one of the basic principles of evolution. You cannot have a single homo-sapien giving birth to all other homo sapiens.In other words the entity we call "Mitochondrial Eve" must have had parents herself for evolution to have happened

 

[bluebird]

I don't know why he is triggered by my comments and he is insulting me I've studied evolution and I've seen some flaws in it I even asked my teacher the same questions and he couldn't answer me.

It's text book atheist responses. Don't take it to heart. Like I said they have canned responses. When they insult is when they get agitated because their words have no substance. He can't prove what you asked him to so he tried to turn it around with the old atheist favorite "burden of proof is on the claimant" not realizing in this case he's the claimant . Does he or does he not have evidence is what I'm asking

 

[WiilWaalan]

Strong telescope kulaha . Why don't you buy this strong telescope and tell me what you see that proves this theory of yours that isn't just confirmation bias . Science can be confirmed correct my point was who confirms it not whether or not it's being confirmed.

It doesn't matter who confirmed it as long as its a fact. Its like saying who confirmed 4 + 4 = 8

 

[MadNomad]

Strong telescope kulaha . Why don't you buy this strong telescope and tell me what you see that proves this theory of yours that isn't just confirmation bias . Science can be confirmed correct my point was who confirms it not whether or not it's being confirmed.

So an observation is now confirmation bias?

The universe is expanding, galaxies are moving away from us. Meaning at some point the universe must have started expanding. I'm really simplifying it here but is there anything illogical with this theory? That's up for you to decide. I choose to trust the track record of the scientific community simply because of all the other things they've been right about. Islam doesn't have a track record, it's completely based on faith. So comparing the two is a false equivalence.

 

[government]

So an observation is now confirmation bias?

The universe is expanding, galaxies are moving away from us. Meaning at some point the universe must have started expanding. I'm really simplifying it here but is there anything illogical with this theory? That's up for you to decide. I choose to trust the track record of the scientific community simply because of all the other things they've been right about. Islam doesn't have a track record, it's completely based on faith. So comparing the two is a false equivalence.

Is she annoying you. cousin

 

[WiilWaalan]

So an observation is now confirmation bias?

The universe is expanding, galaxies are moving away from us. Meaning at some point the universe must have started expanding. I'm really simplifying it here but is there anything illogical with this theory? That's up for you to decide. I choose to trust the track record of the scientific community simply because of all the other things they've been right about. Islam doesn't have a track record, it's completely based on faith. So comparing the two is a false equivalence.

Perfectly put.

 

[bluebird]

It doesn't matter who confirmed it as long as its a fact. Its like saying who confirmed 4 + 4 = 8

Honey we can all confirm that with our fingers can you just accept there are some things you can not confirm for yourself, unless you have special authority to do so otherwise you need to rely on second hand information, hmmm?

 

[MadNomad]

Is she annoying you. cousin View attachment 16459

Nah, i try not to get emotional on the Internet :siilaanyosmile:

 

[WiilWaalan]

Honey we can all confirm that with our fingers can you just accept there are some things you can not confirm for yourself, unless you have special authority to do so otherwise you need to rely on second hand information, hmmm?

I agree that there are certain things i cant confirm for myself, but thats only true for things that have not been proven to be true

 

[bluebird]

So an observation is now confirmation bias?

The universe is expanding, galaxies are moving away from us. Meaning at some point the universe must have started expanding. I'm really simplifying it here but is there anything illogical with this theory? That's up for you to decide. I choose to trust the track record of the scientific community simply because of all the other things they've been right about. Islam doesn't have a track record, it's completely based on faith. So comparing the two is a false equivalence.

There we go, finally. that's all I was asking. And I choose to be skeptical because of things that cause me to be distrustful of them. But you do realize the early Muslims believed their messengers because they were always known as truthful people before, too right? So that was basically my point, we all have people whom we choose to follow

 

[WiilWaalan]

There we go, finally. that's all I was asking. And I choose to be skeptical because of things that cause me to be distrustful of them

You seem to be more skeptical of skeptics rather than being skeptical of faith based beliefs

 

[MadNomad]

There we go, finally. that's all I was asking. And I choose to be skeptical because of things that cause me to be distrustful of them. But you do realize the early Muslims believed their messengers because they were always known as truthful people before, too right? So that was basically my point, we all have people whom we choose to follow

I also forgot to add i trust them because the methods they use is proven to be reliable.

It's not about being known as truthful, that's subjective. I'm talking about having a track record of proven claims, which Muhammad didn't have. Science is objective.

 

[bluebird]

You seem to be more skeptical of skeptics rather than being skeptical of faith based beliefs

I'm skeptical of those I believe have an agenda. I also trust scientists but to a degree. I'm against the worship of them in atheist communities.

 

[WiilWaalan]

I also forgot to add i trust them because the methods they use is proven to be reliable.

It's not about being known as truthful, that's subjective. I'm talking about having track record of proven claims, which Muhammad didn't have. Science is objective.

Also science is open to change, If something is proven to be untrue, its discarded immediately

 

[MadNomad]

Also science is open to change, If something is proven to be untrue, its discarded immediately

Exactly, same can't be said for Islam.

 

[bluebird]

I also forgot to add i trust them because the methods they use is proven to be reliable.

It's not about being known as truthful, that's subjective. I'm talking about having a track record of proven claims, which Muhammad didn't have. Science is objective.

again it comes down to blind trust because of past reliability it doesn't really matter the circumstances.

 

[MadNomad]

again it comes down to blind trust because of past reliability it doesn't really matter the circumstances.

There's an element of trust in there, but it's not blind. Past reliability coupled with being able to confirm these scientific claims in the present makes it far from blind.

And again i'll say, belief in Islam is not comparable to this. There's no reliable method of confirming it and it has no record of past reliability. That's blind faith.

 

[Knowthyself]

The like to make fun of creationists for blind following as if they're not blindly following someone else. I mean you have to, unless you're out there in the sea or excavating the ground for bones you have to trust the authority of someone else. For all we know much of what we are told could be an elaborate hoax especially that which is unverifiable. Which brings me to my main point: many atheists I've noticed are the first to believe convoluted theories that can not be confirmed. Jinns= fairy tales but aliens, why not. Many atheists will swallow the words of the wheelchair guy like soup and later claim they think for themselves despite his idiotic theories like time travel. Their entire existence in to be contrarian to the concept of God/religion. They come up with their own version of religion while saying they follow none. Many scoff at the idea of a single God while happily accepting a universe created by many creators such as aliens. (No kidding an atheist guy was actually arguing this)

2.) every time religion is mentioned all atheists suddenly have a Ph.D. In physics chem, bio, bible and quranic studies.

3.) canned responses "we only follow evidence, if new evidence comes through we will gladly follow it" translation if we are told to believe something new we will believe it. Again what choice do they have? It isn't like they have the tools to discover the world, or universe alone.

 

[Knowthyself]

The evolution theory has many holes in it I remember debating with an atheist on this site and when I showed him the inconsistencies in the theory he kept dodging my questions

theres a diffrence between theory and a FACT. learn it