GAY RELUBRICANTS Where are you now? lulz

OzSTEEZ

¡ɟɟo ʞɔnɟ ʇunɔ 'ᴉO
Nov 11, 2008
35,272
9,368
473
40
Oz
When discussing the existence of a God, atheist. The concept of a God is wrong to them, because there's "always a scientific explanation for everything"

Never heard anyone say there is scientific explanations for everything.

Anyway. Atheists in office would lead a much more chilled out administration, or so I believe. They are more inclined to not ignore facts and not justify wild actions like War on their beliefs in fake entities.
 

OzSTEEZ

¡ɟɟo ʞɔnɟ ʇunɔ 'ᴉO
Nov 11, 2008
35,272
9,368
473
40
Oz
Who said anything about politics or Americans. I thought the discussion was about the Atheist Agenda. Do only American Politicians have an atheist agenda?

The discussion was about Atheists getting in to the administration. One claimed Atheists would be chill in the Office, others disagreed and pointed to the Atheist agenda. As far as I'm aware, agendas are useless unless they can influence. That makes my agenda moot.
 

Duke

. . first name's "Daisy" boys
May 12, 2008
55,859
18,142
41
Brandon, FL
The discussion was about Atheists getting in to the administration. One claimed Atheists would be chill in the Office, others disagreed and pointed to the Atheist agenda. As far as I'm aware, agendas are useless unless they can influence. That makes my agenda moot.

teapartyagenda.jpg

No agendas are moot in the internet age.
 

fly

Osharts 11
Oct 1, 2004
71,766
23,485
1,073
Steam
mattressfish
Never heard anyone say there is scientific explanations for everything.

Anyway. Atheists in office would lead a much more chilled out administration, or so I believe. They are more inclined to not ignore facts and not justify wild actions like War on their beliefs in fake entities.

If given enough time, I believe there is probably a scientific explanation for just about everything. The obvious exception is what happened before the Big Bang, or what may have started it. That's really the only thing "God" has left to claim, and I'm pretty sure we'll see religions slowly evolve to that.
 

OzSTEEZ

¡ɟɟo ʞɔnɟ ʇunɔ 'ᴉO
Nov 11, 2008
35,272
9,368
473
40
Oz
If given enough time, I believe there is probably a scientific explanation for just about everything. The obvious exception is what happened before the Big Bang, or what may have started it. That's really the only thing "God" has left to claim, and I'm pretty sure we'll see religions slowly evolve to that.

That will taken a bloody long time to cover everything.. Some say what we know is only like 1/millionth of reality.
 

Coqui

Piccolo Pete
Oct 14, 2004
35,593
4,667
673
43
Columbus, OH
Never heard anyone say there is scientific explanations for everything.

Anyway. Atheists in office would lead a much more chilled out administration, or so I believe. They are more inclined to not ignore facts and not justify wild actions like War on their beliefs in fake entities.

I've been given no indication that as an individual, just like the religious right, an atheist in office would not hesitate to bring about anti-religion legislation. That's not to say you would do it, but you can't deny that there's militant atheism abounding
 

OzSTEEZ

¡ɟɟo ʞɔnɟ ʇunɔ 'ᴉO
Nov 11, 2008
35,272
9,368
473
40
Oz
I've been given no indication that as an individual, just like the religious right, an atheist in office would not hesitate to bring about anti-religion legislation. That's not to say you would do it, but you can't deny that there's militant atheism abounding

It's unconstitutional. So I doubt that would be a big policy they would push for. They just wouldn't push pro religious policy, like banning contraception, banning gay marriage, banning sex outside of marriage, banning stem cell research.
 

Coqui

Piccolo Pete
Oct 14, 2004
35,593
4,667
673
43
Columbus, OH
It's unconstitutional. So I doubt that would be a big policy they would push for. They just wouldn't push pro religious policy, like banning contraception, banning gay marriage, banning sex outside of marriage, banning stem cell research.

It's funny you think all atheists are rational.
 

OzSTEEZ

¡ɟɟo ʞɔnɟ ʇunɔ 'ᴉO
Nov 11, 2008
35,272
9,368
473
40
Oz
Agnosticism is. Atheism requires can require just as much zeal. Being adamant that something doesn't exist is just as irrational as believing it exists without concrete evidence.

Otherwise, we'd still be thinking the world was flat.

That's the most stupid thing i've heard in a long time.. We are talking about being rational. If you have no proof of something's existence, the only rational path from there is to not believe.
 

Coqui

Piccolo Pete
Oct 14, 2004
35,593
4,667
673
43
Columbus, OH
That's the most stupid thing i've heard in a long time.. We are talking about being rational. If you have no proof of something's existence, the only rational path from there is to not believe.

Then scientists that do research are also irrational.

It is irrational to think there will be a cure for AIDS.
It is irrational to think there's life on other planets.
It is irrational to think that a man can run 100 yards in 9.5 seconds.
It is irrational to think that gas will hit $5.00/gallon in the states.
 

JAXvillain

Curly_Sue
Oct 13, 2004
68,357
1,740
923
Then scientists that do research are also irrational.

It is irrational to think there will be a cure for AIDS.
It is irrational to think there's life on other planets.
It is irrational to think that a man can run 100 yards in 9.5 seconds.
It is irrational to think that gas will hit $5.00/gallon in the states.

that's still wrong. you're saying we know there's a god to begin with (AIDS, etc.)
 

Coqui

Piccolo Pete
Oct 14, 2004
35,593
4,667
673
43
Columbus, OH
that's still wrong. you're saying we know there's a god to begin with (AIDS, etc.)

That's some major twisting to get at that.

His statement was plain and simple. It's irrational to believe something exists if there's no proof. So a cure for AIDS still fits that.
 

JAXvillain

Curly_Sue
Oct 13, 2004
68,357
1,740
923
That's some major twisting to get at that.

His statement was plain and simple. It's irrational to believe something exists if there's no proof. So a cure for AIDS still fits that.

it doesn't work. you're starting with a known in the case of AIDS and an unknown in the case of god.
 

Coqui

Piccolo Pete
Oct 14, 2004
35,593
4,667
673
43
Columbus, OH
it doesn't work. you're starting with a known in the case of AIDS and an unknown in the case of god.

No. I'm starting with the statement, that if no proof exists, then it's irrational to believe it can exist. Even removing God from the discussion, that was the point he said.