Oh, and scientific theories have a demonstrable hypothesis that makes reliable predictions, has been through as pear review system and published in a journal, it is a body of work encompassing many facts to explain how something works like a system or process, using the word 'theory' in context of science is fine, but then slapping it next to philosophy in the same context is just insulting, not to mention just plain wrong!.
I call bull shit right back acha!.
not believing in gods can never be a religion, as this video unequivocally proves!.
I don't have faith that atheism is true, that doesn't even make sense!
joebot1 2 years ago
I call it bullshit.
Not collecting stamps and no playing sports fall under the "Shit I don't Do" category
Bald falls under the "HairSTYLE" category (Color being irrelevant, especially considering the color of eyebrows and body hair)
And Atheism falls under the "Faith" category (You have faith that Atheism is true; and you practice it religiously by doing nothing)
iluvideos 2 years ago
they are exactly comparable!
joebot1 2 years ago
THESE ARE HARDLY COMPARABLE!
"Is not playing a sport a sport?" - It's what you don't do
"Is Bald a hair color?" - It's a hair style.
"Is not collection stamps a hobbly?" - see the first answer
iluvideos 2 years ago
IE, not a religion.
Is not playing golf a sport?
Is bald a hair colour
Is not collecting stamps a hobby?
joebot1 2 years ago
Athiesm: Unique but still falls in the circle of "How many God do you worshiping your religion?" Many? One? or None?
Tradition: None, "the tradition of no tradition" (paradox!!)
Schisms: Neglectors (weak atheists), rejectors (strong atheists), anyone in between, etc
iluvideos 2 years ago
My bad, I meant the put 'theory' next to the scientific part only ;P
iluvideos 2 years ago
Oh, and scientific theories have a demonstrable hypothesis that makes reliable predictions, has been through as pear review system and published in a journal, it is a body of work encompassing many facts to explain how something works like a system or process, using the word 'theory' in context of science is fine, but then slapping it next to philosophy in the same context is just insulting, not to mention just plain wrong!.
Look up 'fallacy of equivocation'
back in your box ;p lol
joebot1 2 years ago
More like your point was convoluted and lacked any real sense of conclusion?.
Ambling your way through a labored point and not actually saying anything of worth is hardly an argument!.
state your point again, and this time think about what you have to say before saying it!
joebot1 2 years ago
I'm sorry. did I throw in too many big words? Or is there just something you don't understand?
iluvideos 2 years ago