How can extremely religious adults be taken seriously.

[Zach Lowe]

You say that atheism is the rational position because God has not been proven, therefore you must think that God doesn't exist

Is this not just as stupid as arguing the opposite way?
What's the difference between "has not been disproven, therefore must exist" and "has not been proven, therefore must exist"?

The only true position of pure rationality that's free of personal belief is pure agnosticism with no atheist or theist leaning

Your concept is disbelief is far from the accepted one

Consider Benjamin Franklin's kite experiment which discovered that lightning is electricity

What do you think his default position was then? It was a dispassionate one, meaning that just because he had a suspicion that lightning was indeed electricity, did not mean he would let his opinion affect his experiment.

According to your definition of dispassionate or rational, Franklin should've not believed that lightning was electricity and he would've never done the experiment or uncovered what he did

So what is completely rational and free of personal opinion or bias is to be agnostic and not atheist or theist

You claim atheism is also a rational position in addition to agnosticism but it isn't, if it were then why isn't everyone an atheist? Why are atheists such a small minority? Why do zero credible sources of information that specifically try to be dispassionate and free of personal bias claim that atheism is a rational position (or as you say, the only one)? The real world shows that your claim of atheism as a rational, dispassionate position is wrong yet you hold onto this concept

 

[Zach Lowe]

@NoMayo15

You have the lack of brainpower that is required to fall for that idiotic, simplistic model and still have to arrogance to claim that atheism is a rational position for everyone

You even admitted previously that when it comes to your position, only your agnosticism is dispassionate/rational/etc and that your atheism is not

But you push atheism as a rational position for others?

 

[NoMayo15]

You say that atheism is the rational position because God has not been proven, therefore you must think that God doesn't exist

Is this not just as stupid as arguing the opposite way?

With one sentence you've displayed that you don't understand my position at all. My argument isn't "because god has not been proven, god doesn't exist".

 

[Zach Lowe]

With one sentence you've displayed that you don't understand my position at all. My argument isn't "because god has not been proven, god doesn't exist".

Of course that's now how you could put it but that's the core of what your belief is or in other words that's your thinking when you peel away all the layers of pseudo intellectual posturing and bullshyt

don't be mad because I'm not wording it in the way that you want

How many times are you gonna play the "I don't like your opening sentence so I won't read the rest of your post " tactic

 

[NoMayo15]

Of course that's now how you could put it but that's the core of what your belief is or in other words that's your thinking when you peel away all the layers of pseudo intellectual posturing and bullshyt

don't be mad because I'm not wording it in the way that you want

How many times are you gonna play the "I don't like your opening sentence so I won't read the rest of your post " tactic

Well, if you find it worthwhile to strawman my position, and debate that, then fine. But don't pretend like you've knocked down my argument ... you change it so it's easier to debate. That's a fallacy.

And of course I'm not going to read the rest of the page. If your premise is wrong, and you aren't even arguing against my position, then I have no reason to continue.

 

[Zach Lowe]

Well, if you find it worthwhile to strawman my position, and debate that, then fine. But don't pretend like you've knocked down my argument ... you change it so it's easier to debate. That's a fallacy.

And of course I'm not going to read the rest of the page. If your premise is wrong, and you aren't even arguing against my position, then I have no reason to continue.

Too much for you to handle huh

What I'm saying is that your agnosticism is rationally valid but your atheism is a leap of faith or an assumption that is no different from theism so you are not at in a more rational position at all

and you misunderstand "disbelief" which is simply not looking at evidence in a way to try to prove what you're hoping to uncover. You're taking it further and applying it to believing in the negative, which is not the same.

Translation for the slow: Disbelief = I can't believe in the positive or negative until I examine evidence

If we accepted your definition of disbelief then scientists would not do research, they would just assume that all their ideas are wrong and stop right there before they do anything

just reply to that post, I don't see the point of saying everything again

 

[NoMayo15]

Too much for you to handle huh

What I'm saying is that your agnosticism is rationally valid but your atheism is a leap of faith or an assumption that is no different from theism so you are not at in a more rational position at all

and you misunderstand "disbelief" which is simply not looking at evidence in a way to try to prove what you're hoping to uncover. You're taking it further and applying it to believing in the negative, which is not the same.

Translation for the slow: Disbelief = I can't believe in the positive or negative until I examine evidence

If we accepted your definition of disbelief then scientists would not do research, they would just assume that all their ideas are wrong and stop right there before they do anything

just reply to that post, I don't see the point of saying everything again

No, my atheism is not a leap of faith. It is the result of a ponderance of the evidence presented for the existence of a god, acknowledgement that said evidence is not strong enough to confirm that such an entity exists, and an abstention from belief until better evidence presents itself.

Again, for ANY claim, the default position is disbelief until evidence confirms it to be true. A scientist, when conducting experiments, doesn't assume to know if the hypothesis is true or false. He waits until he does the experiment, observes the evidence, and makes conclusions based on that. That is essentially the position of the weak atheist. The experiments are inconclusive ... there is not enough evidence to confirm the hypothesis is true. So, the only reasonable conclusion is to not believe the hypothesis until there is better evidence.

Disbelieve doesn't necessarily mean believe the opposite. It just means the claim is not worthy of belief.

 

[CouldntBeMeTho]

Atheists like to play this game so you might as well beat them at it
Of course they'll never admit defeat though they'll just modify their positions while claiming they never changed a thing

Well you can go ahead and define atheism however you want. You sir are the perfect example of why religious people cant be taken seriously. I cant even have a conversation about a definition of a word with you. eat a bag of baby dikks faq

 

[kevm3]

lol@agnostic atheism or in other words a breed of atheists that can throw all the stones you want, but then back into a corner of "I don't claim to know it all" when the notion of a godless creation by complete unintelligence is challenged.

atheists claim to need evidence for belief, and yet have the unsubstantiated belief that their atheist philosophies will enhance civilization when there has been no great atheist civilization of note. The political philosophy of marxism, which made atheism a central tenet, has been an utter travesty.

I still have yet to hear someone show me proof of a random number generator consistently producing predictable patterns and generating anything resembling form or function... and yet we're to believe a completely unintelligent and chaotic universe spawned a world filled with fixed values and patterns that can be studied? It spawned a world full of form and function? It would be ridiculous to suggest a hamster having painted the Mona Lisa, and yet something infinitely less intelligent than a hamster, aka complete unintelligence, somehow created something several orders more complex than a painting in all of the various life-forms that exist. A random number generator will not even produce something as simple as patterns of numbers, and yet we are supposed to believe a completely random and chaotic universe produced something substantially more complex as the human brain, which has hundreds of billions of cells working together? How do particles derived from a complete nonintelligent source link up and intelligently work together?

Complete nonintelligence has NO ability to discern, so someone please explain to me why it would create several creatures concerned with replicating and passing on its DNA? Complete nonintelligence has no ability to discern, therefore, it has no concern with either creating or maintaining life.


Atheists love to use this flying spaghetti monster nonsense, but I guess 'programmers' don't exist, right? I can draw the parallel of a programmer creating a video game world and programming it's creatures with artificial intelligences as well as setting all of the 'rules and properties' of the world the creatures inhabit. Those creatures can search their whole world of pixels and poiygons and yet never come across their creator--the programmer--, since the programmer is essentially in a different dimension than the creatures of that video game world, so I guess that means for a certainty that the programmer never existed, correct? Also, what do programmers use to program? Language... and broken down even further, WORDS.

John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

but can atheists draw a parallel? Can they show me a computer program with no programmer or lines of code that even exists, much less one that has created a highly complex world of pattern and function?

Atheists love to slang around the term evidence as a way to discredit believers, and yet they have no evidence to support their own beliefs in a Godless creation. And soon the definition shifts not into Godless creation, but rather a disbelief in theology... allowing them to be mocking skeptics while not having the courage to propose any beliefs of their own which is subject to scrutiny.

Let's go further. Atheists love to call the religious sheep and products of their pastor, and yet many of these e-atheists merely regurgitate arguments and quotes made by other atheists. They are 'independent thinkers' but are quick to cite Bill Maher, Neil Degrasse Tyson and other prominent atheists. Where is your own research?

 

[kevm3]

imo the whole "anti religious beliefs" part of atheism stems from all the bullshyt we see religion cause and the fact that we just have to deal with it because "thats their faith". the anti-god sentiment is a result of the anti-reaction to what we see resulting from these manmade religions on earth

for example (thats all it is)

there are plenty of violent muslims who are willing to martyr themselves and commit violent acts because they "know" that god will reward them in the afterlife. meanwhile, there are plenty of nonviolent muslims who practice their religion peacefully.

but why should we be subject to the religiously driven violence just so that people can also peacefully believe in these idiotic fairytales? the negatives far outweigh the positives

and yet no criticism on the attrocities that resulted in the atheism based marxist regimes?

 

[The Real]

lol@agnostic atheism or in other words a breed of atheists that can throw all the stones you want, but then back into a corner of "I don't claim to know it all" when the notion of a godless creation by complete unintelligence is challenged.

atheists claim to need evidence for belief, and yet have the unsubstantiated belief that their atheist philosophies will enhance civilization when there has been no great atheist civilization of note. The political philosophy of marxism, which made atheism a central tenet, has been an utter travesty.

I still have yet to hear someone show me proof of a random number generator consistently producing predictable patterns and generating anything resembling form or function... and yet we're to believe a completely unintelligent and chaotic universe spawned a world filled with fixed values and patterns that can be studied? It spawned a world full of form and function? It would be ridiculous to suggest a hamster having painted the Mona Lisa, and yet something infinitely less intelligent than a hamster, aka complete unintelligence, somehow created something several orders more complex than a painting in all of the various life-forms that exist. A random number generator will not even produce something as simple as patterns of numbers, and yet we are supposed to believe a completely random and chaotic universe produced something substantially more complex as the human brain, which has hundreds of billions of cells working together? How do particles derived from a complete nonintelligent source link up and intelligently work together?

Complete nonintelligence has NO ability to discern, so someone please explain to me why it would create several creatures concerned with replicating and passing on its DNA? Complete nonintelligence has no ability to discern, therefore, it has no concern with either creating or maintaining life.


Atheists love to use this flying spaghetti monster nonsense, but I guess 'programmers' don't exist, right? I can draw the parallel of a programmer creating a video game world and programming it's creatures with artificial intelligences as well as setting all of the 'rules and properties' of the world the creatures inhabit. Those creatures can search their whole world of pixels and poiygons and yet never come across their creator--the programmer--, since the programmer is essentially in a different dimension than the creatures of that video game world, so I guess that means for a certainty that the programmer never existed, correct? Also, what do programmers use to program? Language... and broken down even further, WORDS.

John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

but can atheists draw a parallel? Can they show me a computer program with no programmer or lines of code that even exists, much less one that has created a highly complex world of pattern and function?

Horrible argument. If there's one position that in this day and age requires no burden of proof, it's the statement that there is no personal God or intelligent designer. You don't have to be an atheist to accept that. Any intelligent agnostic or religious person should be able to see why such a conception is supremely illogical. Religious philosophers themselves stopped arguing for it several centuries ago. If you're still hanging onto it now, just give up.

 

[the cac mamba]

and yet no criticism on the attrocities that resulted in the atheism based marxist regimes?

i dont find "these people did it because they didnt think theres a god" to be a valid argument

imo theres no comparison between thinking "god" will actively reward you for actions on earth, and committing actions on earth. after all, wouldnt someone elses god punish you for something that your god is acceptable? the shyt is laughable

 

[ThaGlow]

lol@agnostic atheism or in other words a breed of atheists that can throw all the stones you want, but then back into a corner of "I don't claim to know it all" when the notion of a godless creation by complete unintelligence is challenged.

atheists claim to need evidence for belief, and yet have the unsubstantiated belief that their atheist philosophies will enhance civilization when there has been no great atheist civilization of note. The political philosophy of marxism, which made atheism a central tenet, has been an utter travesty.

I still have yet to hear someone show me proof of a random number generator consistently producing predictable patterns and generating anything resembling form or function... and yet we're to believe a completely unintelligent and chaotic universe spawned a world filled with fixed values and patterns that can be studied? It spawned a world full of form and function? It would be ridiculous to suggest a hamster having painted the Mona Lisa, and yet something infinitely less intelligent than a hamster, aka complete unintelligence, somehow created something several orders more complex than a painting in all of the various life-forms that exist. A random number generator will not even produce something as simple as patterns of numbers, and yet we are supposed to believe a completely random and chaotic universe produced something substantially more complex as the human brain, which has hundreds of billions of cells working together? How do particles derived from a complete nonintelligent source link up and intelligently work together?

Complete nonintelligence has NO ability to discern, so someone please explain to me why it would create several creatures concerned with replicating and passing on its DNA? Complete nonintelligence has no ability to discern, therefore, it has no concern with either creating or maintaining life.


Atheists love to use this flying spaghetti monster nonsense, but I guess 'programmers' don't exist, right? I can draw the parallel of a programmer creating a video game world and programming it's creatures with artificial intelligences as well as setting all of the 'rules and properties' of the world the creatures inhabit. Those creatures can search their whole world of pixels and poiygons and yet never come across their creator--the programmer--, since the programmer is essentially in a different dimension than the creatures of that video game world, so I guess that means for a certainty that the programmer never existed, correct? Also, what do programmers use to program? Language... and broken down even further, WORDS.

John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

but can atheists draw a parallel? Can they show me a computer program with no programmer or lines of code that even exists, much less one that has created a highly complex world of pattern and function?

Atheists love to slang around the term evidence as a way to discredit believers, and yet they have no evidence to support their own beliefs in a Godless creation. And soon the definition shifts not into Godless creation, but rather a disbelief in theology... allowing them to be mocking skeptics while not having the courage to propose any beliefs of their own which is subject to scrutiny.

Let's go further. Atheists love to call the religious sheep and products of their pastor, and yet many of these e-atheists merely regurgitate arguments and quotes made by other atheists. They are 'independent thinkers' but are quick to cite Bill Maher, Neil Degrasse Tyson and other prominent atheists. Where is your own research?

Wow. Who ever said that Atheism was meant to better communities, civilization? People will be good and bad regardless, but at least they aren't copping any pleas. Just like being labeled a "Christian" doesn't mean you're automatically decent. You believe its the way to live, but have a cop out with the original sin thing when you be fukking up.

Your analogy with the programmer is soooo wack I don't know where to start, lol. First off, we know that programmers exist. Of course there are programmers making video games. You don't need "faith" for that, lol. Just like a painting came from a painter, well no fukking shyt, we have painters. No faith needed for that. Every man made example is explainable, except for God made everything That's the only one that relies on faith. Stop comparing examples where its faith vs fact.

As for your comment on evidence, lol. You serious?! Nobody would even question the existence of God if people hadn't start claiming there was a God. The evidence for no God? Never seen one. Never felt the presence of one. What more lack of God evidence does a non-believer need?

 

[kevm3]

Wow. Who ever said that Atheism was meant to better communities, civilization? People will be good and bad regardless, but at least they aren't copping any pleas. Just like being labeled a "Christian" doesn't mean you're automatically decent. You believe its the way to live, but have a cop out with the original sin thing when you be fukking up.

Your analogy with the programmer is soooo wack I don't know where to start, lol. First off, we know that programmers exist. Of course there are programmers making video games. You don't need "faith" for that, lol. Just like a painting came from a painter, well no fukking shyt, we have painters. No faith needed for that. Every man made example is explainable, except for God made everything That's the only one that relies on faith. Stop comparing examples where its faith vs fact.

As for your comment on evidence, lol. You serious?! Nobody would even question the existence of God if people hadn't start claiming there was a God. The evidence for no God? Never seen one. Never felt the presence of one. What more lack of God evidence does a non-believer need?

So just because you haven't personally experienced it, that means for a certainty it doesn't exist? Existence of something is based on you personally experiencing it? So other planets didn't exist until we were able to see them with a telescope?

lol@the programmer analogy is wack. It's wack because you can't answer the question. The parallel using the programmer is perfectly valid. The religious are constantly asked about how God could exist if we cannot see Him. I made a comparison to a character in a digital world given artificial intelligence 1who could explore his world and yet never see his creator. A character in a digital world can't see or feel his programmers, so I guess that programmer doesn't exist using your logic.

Who said atheists are here to improve civilization? I don't know, maybe the atheists who constantly attack the religious and shout from their pedestal of supposed intellectual superiority? Also, it is atheists who are the ones who claim the need for evidence to believe something. The religious will tell you they believe on faith... and yet there are several beliefs that atheists float that they don't require evidence for, such as the superiority of a godless society.

 

[Fervid]

beliefs that atheists float that they don't require evidence for, such as the superiority of a godless society.

There's actually evidence for this. More secular societies suffer less social dysfunction than more religious societies. Google it yourself.