Google excludes churches from its non-for-profits discounts

Glaucus · 15 Sep 2011 at 18:54

StriderX said:
Pretty sure hes on about the use of science (due to the use of the scientific method) adds credibility to ones argument, more so than from a book written and re written over thousands of years.
.

Except the scientific method does nothing of the sort in such a topic. You have to make a load of assumptions, which are not based on the scientific method and miss use it.
If you use science properly the only thing it will add to such a debate, is science doesn't care as the parameters do not fall within the scientific model.

Naffa · 15 Sep 2011 at 18:54

AcidHell2 said:
Why?
Many many many do.

Well, you said that almost all the atheists you know, including those on this forum, do so. I assume you have included me in that, and I can safely say that my atheism is not based on faith at all, point number one. Secondly, I don't 'use science', I observe the discoveries made by its method and form a reasoned conclusion that the probability of god's existence is less than the probability of god's non-existence. I believe that is a position held by the majority of non-believers.

Hatter The Mad · 15 Sep 2011 at 18:54

StriderX said:
Pretty sure hes on about the use of science (due to the use of the scientific method) adds credibility to ones argument, more so than from a book written and re written over thousands of years.

Thus the upper hand of an argument goes to said person, he/she thinks they have won and go off happily.

Shock horror that the reasonable and rational person gets the upper hand in an argument :eek:

Vulcan · 15 Sep 2011 at 18:55

AcidHell2 said:
Why?
Many many many do.

I've never ever, heard an atheist do this. Ever.

Atheists do not believe in God, there's no need to use science to disprove a concept that has no prove of existence in the first place.

Glaucus · 15 Sep 2011 at 18:55

Naffa said:
Well, you said that almost all the atheists you know, including those on this forum, do so. I assume you have included me in that, and I can safely say that my atheism is not based on faith at all, point number one. Secondly, I don't 'use science', I observe the discoveries made by its method and form a reasoned conclusion that the probability of god's existence is less than the probability of god's non-existence. I believe that is a position held by the majority of non-believers.

How was that question directed at you specifically?

Glaucus · 15 Sep 2011 at 18:56

Longbow said:
I've never ever, heard an atheist do this. Ever.

.

Go skim through almost every religious thread on this forum, especially the huge one in SC

Naffa · 15 Sep 2011 at 18:57

AcidHell2 said:
How was that question directed at you specifically?

Well, I fall into the bracket that you described. The probability is that I fall into the bracket of, 'most atheists I know (including those on this forum)'. I answered accordingly, and then added a point at the end that extends to a greater swath of atheists.

StriderX · 15 Sep 2011 at 18:57

AcidHell2 said:
Except the scientific method does nothing of the sort in such a topic. You have to make a load of assumptions, which are not based on the scientific method and miss use it.
If you use science properly the only thing it will add to such a debate, is science doesn't care as the parameters do not fall within the scientific model.

Well that's the point, said person simply doesn't care, just like a lot of religious folk don't care about their own contradicting actions from their beliefs.

Humanity sucks, only a few of us are rational and realistic people.

Glaucus · 15 Sep 2011 at 19:00

StriderX said:
Humanity sucks, .

that I totally agree with.

As for Naffa you do realise most, does not mean everyone.

Vulcan · 15 Sep 2011 at 19:01

AcidHell2 said:
Go skim through almost every religious thread on this forum, especially the huge one in SC

I'll pass on trawling through SC, but I do follow religious threads here in GD. And I've never seen it. The only thing I do remember is you defining atheism as a faith or religion, which it is not.

Glaucus · 15 Sep 2011 at 19:02

Longbow said:
I'll pass on trawling through SC, but I do follow religious threads here in GD. And I've never seen it. The only thing I do remember is you defining atheism as a faith or religion, which it is not.

Again as debated in such threads, it depends on your definition and it certainly can be described as a faith.

How about Dawkins, he very much tries to use science.

Naffa · 15 Sep 2011 at 19:03

AcidHell2 said:
As for Naffa you do realise most, does not mean everyone.

Thanks, I do realise that. So, you make a claim that almost all the atheists you know talk and think in a certain way, one comes along and makes the reasonable assertion that the claim is fatuous and false, and you happen to have been talking about everyone, except that one person? It's not really credible.

Like I said, I was playing the odds, and the probability was (and is) that I fall into the bracket of almost all the atheists you know. You do understand that, right?

Glaucus · 15 Sep 2011 at 19:06

Oh god, really your going down that route, seriously.
No you don't have to fall into that bracket and odds mean nothing in such a scenario.

Vulcan · 15 Sep 2011 at 19:06

AcidHell2 said:
How about Dawkins, he very much tries to use science.

He uses science to dispute what religion preaches. Evolution for example.

Glaucus · 15 Sep 2011 at 19:07

Longbow said:
He uses science to dispute what religion preaches. Evolution for example.

No, he goes much further than that. Watch and read his stuff.

Naffa · 15 Sep 2011 at 19:08

AcidHell2 said:
Oh god, really your going down that route, seriously.
No you don't have to fall into that bracket and odds mean nothing in such a scenario.

I don't know whether to laugh, or to cry. Pathetic.

Glaucus · 15 Sep 2011 at 19:10

Naffa said:
I don't know whether to laugh, or to cry. Pathetic.

Not really, just because the odds are such doesn't make you anything. You don't know who I know and who I've spoken to.

Hatter The Mad · 15 Sep 2011 at 19:23

AcidHell2 said:
No, he goes much further than that. Watch and read his stuff.

Point me to an example. I've watched/read everything Dawkins (and Hitchens) and I cannot think of something where Dawkins has some kind of unevidenced 'faith' in something.

Castiel · 15 Sep 2011 at 19:45

Google are within their rights to address their business model however they choose, although if they are actively discriminating against religions they may fall foul of the law in this country at least.

As for the rest of this thread, with a few notable exceptions, it consists of one bunch of ill informed fools calling another bunch of ill informed fools names.

Religion is a tool, it can be used like any other tool, for good or evil. It is humanity that is responsible, not the tools they use to justify themselves, so saying that religion is only a force for evil is as retarded as saying it is only a force for good.

And contrary to popular belief on these forums, Spirituality or Religion isnt retarded, just because you dont understand or accept something doesnt make it stupid or foolish. Some religious and/or spiritual people are stupid and retarded, but then so are some non religious/ non spiritual people and conversely the opposite is also true.

Slinky1989 · 15 Sep 2011 at 19:51

chaosdestro0 said:
It's actually tesco who is our local church

Hello fellow swindoner

Thanks for posting the videos in this thread though, just watched the whole debate, very interesting and great for me (as an atheist) to watch the church faulter under debate