What is the best approach for buying books as a science major?

[LogicalAtheist]

Originally posted by Nicool003
What kind of religous people are you talking to? And I'm sure you wouldn't get the same results if you weren't going by so dumb poll you found online or by what someone told you. And I have plenty of evidence for my religion and beliefs thank you. AND I assure you I am not dishonest to myself.

Nicool. Sadly, every atheist here agrees. You don't have evidence kid, you got emotionality. There's not a drop of evidence that proves a false claim, and this is a false claim.

I am saddening that you will live your life this way. But alas it is YOUR choice. No one is forcing you to think for yourself, you're letting your emotions stop you from thinking intelligently.

Sad but true. "What kind of religious people are you talking to"? Well, I'm talking to you aren't I? You've just proven my case.

No need to respond, I won't be reading it!

PS: Us atheists laugh at you saying you have evidence, hahah!

 

[Nicool003]

Nicool. Sadly, every atheist here agrees. You don't have evidence kid, you got emotionality. There's not a drop of evidence that proves a false claim, and this is a false claim.

Give me evidence that this ISNT and I assure you I can proove it all wrong.

I am saddening that you will live your life this way. But alas it is YOUR choice. No one is forcing you to think for yourself, you're letting your emotions stop you from thinking intelligently.

I am very intelligent and my religion does not hold me back in any way. And I am sad that you don't have one because several SCIENTIFIC studies show that suicide rates are higher in atheists than people with religion because people with a religion have more to look for and to look up to and believe in. But like you said to me it is YOUR choice.

No need to respond, I won't be reading it!

I have reason to believe that you know I will proove you wrong for, after those comments that were an attempt at being nasty, now you are just going to ignore this topic altogether. Because you don't want to be wrong.

PS: Us atheists laugh at you saying you have evidence, hahah!

PS: Us RELIGOUS people the MAJORITY laugh at you saying we're wrong! hahaha!

 

[Viper]

Ok I am now lost, I would not call myself an atheist but I am not the sort of person who goes to church regually,


Shouldn`t this be in the Philosiphy section?

 

[Psyber freek]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Nicool. Sadly, every atheist here agrees. You don't have evidence kid, you got emotionality. There's not a drop of evidence that proves a false claim, and this is a false claim.

I am saddening that you will live your life this way. But alas it is YOUR choice. No one is forcing you to think for yourself, you're letting your emotions stop you from thinking intelligently.

Sad but true. "What kind of religious people are you talking to"? Well, I'm talking to you aren't I? You've just proven my case.

No need to respond, I won't be reading it!

PS: Us atheists laugh at you saying you have evidence, hahah!

I'd just like to point out that the evidence behind your belief also is widely controversial. Evolution has yet to be proven, and most likely will not be. Evolutionists still have a hard time explaining the origins of life, the irreductible complexity of life, and the cambrian explosion.

Why are you saddened by people accepting religion? I think it benefits individuals more than atheism does. Religion fills many voids that atheism cannot. I don't see why it matters to an atheist which religion you are because in the end, everyone will suffer the same fate: oblivion.

 

[FZ+]

I'd just like to point out that the evidence behind your belief also is widely controversial. Evolution has yet to be proven, and most likely will not be. Evolutionists still have a hard time explaining the origins of life, the irreductible complexity of life, and the cambrian explosion.

And creationism will?
Cambrian explosion is explainable by puntuated equilibriums.
What irreductible complexity?

I don't see why it matters to an atheist which religion you are because in the end, everyone will suffer the same fate: oblivion.

Yep. Religion offers eternal torment for the majority of the world's population as an interesting variation. I'm sure that makes people so happy...

 

[LogicalAtheist]

Psyber Freek said: "I'd just like to point out that the evidence behind your belief also is widely controversial. Evolution has yet to be proven, and most likely will not be."

Haha! Evolution has LONG since been proven. WTF world are you living in? All agents of evolution have ALL been documented in every species discovered on the planet. Are you living in a damn commune?

I suppose you would also say the Earth has not yet been proven round, since that's about as ourageous a claim? Man, this is gettin' pathetic around here! How does Greg allow this kind of sickness?

FZ+ - You said it bud, you said it. It's sick we have to live in the same time as such humans, is it not? We're trully before our time. Ugh, now I need to get Psyber off with a hot shower.

 

[damgo]

Actually, Nicool is right... studies of long-term happiness generally show that under normal conditions, the only two things which really correlate with increased happiness are 1) deep religious faith, and 2) long-term marriage. But that's neither here nor there.

If I were to guess, it seems you probably have a limited experience with religious folks... probably mainly fundamentalist Protestants. Am I right? I grew up in the middle of the Bible Belt, and yeah, those guys are pretty dumb. Don't judge all religion based on that, though; there are a lot more intelligent religious traditions around.

Also, the fact is we all have beliefs that are not based on evidence: for example, I believe you guys really exist, and I am not just a brain in a vat (or 'in the Matrix' as the kids say ). I believe that the universe functions according to reasonable laws of science, and those aren't going to change from place to place or time to time. But there is zero evidence for these; they are pure faith. And we all have beliefs that are not justifiable by reason alone... moral beliefs come to mind for one.

In any case religious belief seems like a poor litmus test for relationships... I mean really why is such a big deal? I can see not wanting to date some evangelist Christian, but many people are religious just because they haven't bothered to think it through that much, or they have a nuanced reasonable position on it. And anyways, why is it so important?

 

[LogicalAtheist]

Originally posted by damgo
If I were to guess, it seems you probably have a limited experience with religious folks... probably mainly fundamentalist Protestants. Am I right? I grew up in the middle of the Bible Belt, and yeah, those guys are pretty dumb. Don't judge all religion based on that, though; there are a lot more intelligent religious traditions around.

Wrong. I am familiar with people of all religions. It DOES NOT matter who is in a religion. The regilion speaks for itself. I suppose one could argue a given rapist doesn't give you a good idea of who all rapists are. Does it matter?

There can, by the very definition, be no one who is relious and intelligent.

I cannot date a relious person because of the foundations of a relationship. Honesty, and trust. Religious people break both of those with themselves, and therefore could only be expected to break them with others.

 

[eNtRopY]

http://carcino.gen.nz/images/image.php/463c5922/arguing.jpg

 

[Hurkyl]

I see a surprising number of emotional statements coming from someone named "Logical Atheist".

 

[LogicalAtheist]

No your not. You're just not understanding what I'm saying. I didn't say I'd not make emotional statements, I suggest you research my posts before you comment. Otherwise it looks like you're a middle schooler.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Originally posted by damgo
Also, the fact is we all have beliefs that are not based on evidence: for example, I believe you guys really exist, and I am not just a brain in a vat (or 'in the Matrix' as the kids say ). I believe that the universe functions according to reasonable laws of science, and those aren't going to change from place to place or time to time. But there is zero evidence for these; they are pure faith. And we all have beliefs that are not justifiable by reason alone... moral beliefs come to mind for one.

Not true. I'm not going to argue with you that it's been proven that we all exist, but to say that there's no evidence is ludicrous. Evidence does not necessarily equate to proof. And believing that the universe functions according to "reasonable" laws is not faith, but based in reason. Do not equate either of the aforementioned to faith.
---------------------------------------------

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Wrong. I am familiar with people of all religions. It DOES NOT matter who is in a religion. The regilion speaks for itself. I suppose one could argue a given rapist doesn't give you a good idea of who all rapists are. Does it matter?

There can, by the very definition, be no one who is relious and intelligent.

That is not true. It is empirically disproven. I once thought that there was a general correlation between being atheism/theism and intelligence, but, in my experiences, the evidence just isn't there. Einstein did believe in god--he didn't have a dogmatic religion, but he did believe in the existence of god (I think that he was a deist). Many doctors and scientists are christians, muslims, etc.

I cannot date a relious person because of the foundations of a relationship. Honesty, and trust. Religious people break both of those with themselves, and therefore could only be expected to break them with others.

I don't see how you can say that. With some religious people, the fear of god keeps them honest and trustworthy. Believing in fairy tales doesn't make you a liar of a backstabber. And you're only limiting your options. I can understand if you're looking for a long-term relationship that you would want an atheist, but for fun-for-now fling, I suggest that you not worry about it.

 

[LogicalAtheist]

DAN - as to your first comment of the three. YES, you freakin' tell em.

As to the other two, you have mistaken a few things, but alas they're percetable so it's ok.

My definition of intelligence rules out relious people. Thus they can't be intelligent, in the way i define it. Surely mensa members are religous. I'm not talking that way.

Secondly, on your last comment you missed my underlying point. you said something like "fear of god keeps some people honest". The underlying point is a belief in God is dishonesty to oneself, denying one the easy ability to research a proper answer.

If it was research, the most proper answer can only be such a God exists only as a character if a respective mythology.

You missed that point, and instead applied it to reality.

To you it looked like I was saying relious people are liars. What I meant was, because of the above point, one who isn't truthfull with themselves (who takes first an emotionally driven result over a truthfull result even if it doesn't satisfy them emotionally) would thus be a danger if one was looking for someone who would be honest and truthfull with them in a relationship

 

[damgo]

entropy -- LMFAO! but watch me do it anyways...

to say that there's no evidence is ludicrous. Evidence does not necessarily equate to proof. And believing that the universe functions according to "reasonable" laws is not faith, but based in reason. Do not equate either of the aforementioned to faith.

What evidence would that be, that would distinguish it from my brain-in-a-vat hypothesis? What evidence do we have that the rules of the universe are not going to change tomorrow, ie that induction works? cf Hume.

LA, so you think nonreligious girls are less likely to lie/cheat on you than religious ones? And you equate religion==stupidity? Ah well...

Condemnant quod non intellegunt.

 

[LogicalAtheist]

Dam - you're making unintelligent jerry springer like assumptions about what I said. I suggest you shut it until you have something worth saying, and quit making JS assumptions please. Ya look bad man, take a shower!

 

[Hurkyl]

No your not [seeing emotional statements]. You're just not understanding what I'm saying.

How, then, would you classify phrases like:

"you're making unintelligent jerry springer like assumptions about what I said. I suggest you shut it until you have something worth saying, and quit making JS assumptions please. Ya look bad man, take a shower!"

?

 

[Artman]

Enthropy,

ROTFLMAO! That Special Olympics thing, although not very PC, is so funny I had to get up and go outside to laugh (I'm at work)! I'm still laughing at it.

Originally posted by Damgo...
entropy -- LMFAO! but watch me do it anyways...

Me too.


It always amazes me that atheists, who you would expect to have an open mind, could have such a closed mind to even the remote possibility that they could be wrong about the existence of God.

Faith issues cannot be settled by scientific methods. It is not a science. Science is the study of things physical or material. Emotion must come into the decision. How you feel about the existence of God is an emotional question. How can you expect others to approach an emotional issue using only logic? Would that truly be smart?

Many people have felt the presence of God. Whether they have imagined this presence or not is immaterial, to them it is real. It is like the body preparing itself physically for the induction of sugar into the system when a person just starts thinking about eating ice cream (insulin production rises, etc.). The mind doesn't make the distinction between the real and imagined ice cream.

It seems to me that a closed mind is a closed mind. It doesn't matter if that mind is in a Bible thumping hyper conservative fundamentalist bent on converting the world, or in an atheist thumping the Bible bent on converting the world.

Also, if you are going to call religious people unintelligent,

My definition of intelligence rules out relious people. Thus they can't be intelligent, in the way i define it.

I suggest you correct your word usage before you post. I have spotted glaring errors in several of them (not even talking about typos).

Hey, I know I'm not perfect (afterall, all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God), but then I'm not calling people unintelligent.

 

[Galatea]

Originally posted by Artman

It always amazes me that atheists, who you would expect to have an open mind, could have such a closed mind to even the remote possibility that they could be wrong about the existence of God.

Hi

Please do not lump all atheists into one category. "LogicalAtheist" (or whatever he purports to be) is but one person, just as Jerry Falwell is one person. Let's avoid generalizations. Thanks.

As for the rest of this thread... [zz)]

 

[Zero]

kids, this isn't the Religion board...keep if fluff in here OR ELSE!

 

[eNtRopY]

Originally posted by Zero
kids, this isn't the Religion board...keep if fluff in here OR ELSE!

Yeah, Zero is a good name for you.

eNtRopY

 

[Viper]

Carefull, he can bust your poll count right back to zero (not funny even if you do have a freakishly high average ) Or ban you all together

 

[Artman]

Originally posted by Galatea...
Please do not lump all atheists into one category. "LogicalAtheist" (or whatever he purports to be) is but one person, just as Jerry Falwell is one person. Let's avoid generalizations. Thanks.

Good point. I will keep that in mind.

 

[LogicalAtheist]

Likewise. Don't assume all atheists are as logically and scientifically minded as I. There are a vast population of atheists who reach that conclusion by illogic and other idiocy.

You can reach the right answer, the wrong way.

 

[Phobos]

Originally posted by Galatea
Let's avoid generalizations.

Yeah, all generalizations are bad.

 

[Viper]

Not all generalisations are bad

 

[Nicool003]

Haha! Evolution has LONG since been proven. WTF world are you living in? All agents of evolution have ALL been documented in every species discovered on the planet. Are you living in a damn commune?

Actually psyberfreak is indeed correct. Evolution has NOT been proven true yet and if these scientists couldn't prove it right I am certain you can't without bending information to try to suit your purposes...


Zero can you please move this to Philosophy ro religion so we can continue it there...?

 

[LogicalAtheist]

Nicool. Read a dammed book. I won't allow you to spread religious idiocy here.

Evolution is a network of agents. All currently accepted agents of evolution have been proven in every single species on the Earth.

Don't question this sh*t please. I have an MS in NeuroBiology and am currently finishing an MD. Don't start your religious idiocy here.

 

[LogicalAtheist]

You're not very bold spreading idiocy behind a forum name.

The concept defies logic. Accepted evolutionary agents are accepted BECAUSE they've been proven. Duh. So you pick one that is scientifically accepted and I'll do you the honor of showing you how easily it's been proven. Until then quit spreading idiocy.

 

[Nicool003]

Nicool. Read a dammed book. I won't allow you to spread religious idiocy here.

Evolution is a network of agents. All currently accepted agents of evolution have been proven in every single species on the Earth.

Don't question this sh*t please. I have an MS in NeuroBiology and am currently finishing an MD. Don't start your religious idiocy here.

And I won't allow you to spread Atheism here. If you won't let us religous people use the bible then it is only fair that you not be allowed to use scientific information. The Bible is used by many religions so if you disallow its use for this argument then YOU can't use any science books. So perhaps you should allow us to use it in arguments don't you agree?


As for eviolution being proved for every single species on earth... hahahaha! I laugh at the stupidity of that comment. There isn't even enough evidence that humans evolved has several others here have agreed that there simply isn't enough evidence. You are trying to sound tough and confident but I have not seen or heard any evidence.

 

[Nicool003]

The concept defies logic. Accepted evolutionary agents are accepted BECAUSE they've been proven. Duh. So you pick one that is scientifically accepted and I'll do you the honor of showing you how easily it's been proven. Until then quit spreading idiocy.

My idiocy? This topic wouldn't be here without your stupidity

 

[LogicalAtheist]

Yep keep actin' immature.

Like I said, you can't point out a single evolutionary agent. You lost. I win. Get used to it.

 

[Artman]

Like I said, you can't point out a single evolutionary agent. You lost. I win. Get used to it.

I have one. The first instance of life on this planet. What was it, and from where did it evolve? Please also indicate the evidence of this.

If all of the agents are "known" then the ones involved in this should be in that group.

 

[Artman]

By the way, I agree with the THEORY of evolution. I am not convinced that it has been fully proven as science fact.

 

[LogicalAtheist]

Artman - there is an all to common mistake people make when speaking of evolution. You've just made it. I'll gently explain, since you're a nice guy.

Evolution, even darwinian evolution but modern evolution as well, makes absolutely no statement about the origin of life on the planet. None whatsoever.

People often say things to the effect of "evolution doesn't prove how life began". You're right, that's a completely different theory all together. I can speak on that if you'd like, but I'll start a new topic; my introduction here has warranted to much stuff!

Also, your usage of scientific theory versus a scientific fact is something I should address. I'll do so in a brand new section. Look for them!

 

[Artman]

Thank you LogicalAtheist. I will look for them.

By the way. I like the way that you approached my response. Some of the most respected members of this forum work in just that way: attack the points, and not the person.

You're learning

"See" you around the forum.