How can extremely religious adults be taken seriously.

[tru_m.a.c]

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?

let me just stop you right there.

#1 are you arguing from the standpoint that there is "a God" or are you arguing that a specific God exist.

 

[NoMayo15]

Lol at Kev. I'ma get at you in a minute

 

[Gallo]

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?

Your whole argument is based upon a faulty comprehension of statistics and backwards reasoning. That the probability of a specific outcome is very low does not signify anything in itself.

I agree with your argument as it pertains to the utility of religion and gods but it is a bit misguided. As I've said before in this thread, I seriously don't think the species could have survived without religion/myths. It's why all people and societies that have existed thought up their own myths and beliefs. It helps explain things they don't understand, sustains and binds people blah blah. However, modern societies have less utility for it. Today, with the advent of modern science and because we live in a global melting pot, it creates more problems than it solves with ethnic/religious tensions and the like. That is why secularism is always a feature of modern societies and why religion is falling out of favor in those societies. From an individual perspective, quite a lot people like yourself still find utility in it. It sustains you, gets you through your day. Good for you and non-religious people that want to take that away from you are a$$holes imo (you're also an a$$hole for proselytizing). However, its utility says nothing about the validity of their claims.

 

[Zach Lowe]

@NoMayo15 @Ill Clinton I got your quote notifications

I'll respond later I'm not in the mood to read arguments

Mayo if you haven't responded to that post that you ignored (and I subsequently asked you again to respond to) here's your chance

 

[88m3]

I don't anyone very seriously

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

​

 

[Zach Lowe]

@NoMayo15 you're still backing down from that ether post? Reply to that shyt, reply to every point in it

don't give up now

 

[ThaGlow]

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.

Other planets are something that EVERYONE can agree on bro, lol. But back to your response, if I never experienced any inkling of God's greatness or his existence, why would I think there was one? It's more genuine to think there isn't one.

As for your digital world analogy, I get what you're getting at, but you're assuming that only God could be the programmer. How about the idea of a God is just a product of humans in order to manipulate others? Isn't that quite possible too?

As for your superior God-less society knock, I don't know about that, I don't keep up to date with Atheists consensus. But if that is true that they believe that, I don't agree with it.

At the end of the day, you already said all that needs to be said: you rely on faith. Not believing in God doesn't mean people put their faith in something else. Everybody has their own specific situation of like if God was to get at me in this way, then I'll believe he exists. SMH at just telling people to put their faith in a God. Religion isn't factual at all, so when scientists, who are about dat fact life, are constantly checking each other globally, religion and their non-fact checking faith based beliefs need to stay in their lanes. That last part wasn't directed at you, I was just saying.

 

[NoMayo15]

I got your quote notifications

I'll respond later I'm not in the mood to read arguments

Mayo if you haven't responded to that post that you ignored (and I subsequently asked you again to respond to) here's your chance

Which post are you referring to, friend? The one in which you strawman my position? I apologize for not responding quickly enough for you, but I have a life and actually do stuff with my friends around the weekend. I have some free time now, so I'll be happy to show you where your arguments completely fail.

 

[NoMayo15]

Your whole argument is based upon a faulty comprehension of statistics and backwards reasoning. That the probability of a specific outcome is very low does not signify anything in itself.

This is a very important point to bring up about @kevm3 argument. When invoking Kalam's, he also appeals to patterns that happen naturally, and the statistical likelihood of those events. As humans, our brains constantly find patterns ... that's why people compare clouds to different objects, or see Jesus in toast. It's not necessarily the case that some intelligent being, human or otherwise, made that cloud in the shape of the duck - rather we put meaning to that pattern.

I like the poker analogy because I think it best expresses this. It's completely possible that the first time someone plays poker, they are dealt a royal flush -- Of course this is highly unlikely, (I think the odds are like 1 in 650,000) but it's possible for it to happen. But what's more interesting that the odds for being dealt cards that isn't a winning poker hand (say a Jack of clubs, 2 of diamonds, 8 of spades, 6 of spades, and Ace of hearts) is exactly the same. There's no statistical difference between being dealt a royal flush and a random series of cards, but we put value in the former. It's the same with our current universe. Just because it's statistically unlikely for this specific set of conditions to occur doesn't mean it couldn't have happened that way. It doesn't mean some cosmic dealer fixed the deck.

 

[Zach Lowe]

@NoMayo15 How about you respond instead of saying that you'll respond

ima get at you after you respond to that post that you've been ducking

 

[stealthbomber]

fukk @Tall Israeli you're a dumbass. i just read thru this and had to say that.

the fukk happened to this thread tho? are yall really arguing over what an atheist vs agnostic is?

ill make it simple. atheists believe there is no God, agnostics say they don't know whether there is or isnt. the more scientific position would be agnosticism, because of the concession that there is no proof either way. im an atheist, but im not a scientist and dont believe in fairy tales

 

[Type Username Here]

This is a very important point to bring up about @kevm3 argument. When invoking Kalam's, he also appeals to patterns that happen naturally, and the statistical likelihood of those events. As humans, our brains constantly find patterns ... that's why people compare clouds to different objects, or see Jesus in toast. It's not necessarily the case that some intelligent being, human or otherwise, made that cloud in the shape of the duck - rather we put meaning to that pattern.

I like the poker analogy because I think it best expresses this. It's completely possible that the first time someone plays poker, they are dealt a royal flush -- Of course this is highly unlikely, (I think the odds are like 1 in 650,000) but it's possible for it to happen. But what's more interesting that the odds for being dealt cards that isn't a winning poker hand (say a Jack of clubs, 2 of diamonds, 8 of spades, 6 of spades, and Ace of hearts) is exactly the same. There's no statistical difference between being dealt a royal flush and a random series of cards, but we put value in the former. It's the same with our current universe. Just because it's statistically unlikely for this specific set of conditions to occur doesn't mean it couldn't have happened that way. It doesn't mean some cosmic dealer fixed the deck.

I think you are mistaken on your probability friend.

 

[Zach Lowe]

@stealthbomber you obviously haven't read the thread if you're thinking that we're just arguing about the definitions of agnostic vs. atheist

I'm addressing his many logical errors

The one we're currently on is his claim that atheism is "the only rational position"

in fact, the only purely rational or objective position is simply agnosticism that's not in combination with atheism or theism

you're right that you cannot consider atheism a "rational" position (objective rationality, not subjective) if you're an agnostic and believe that there's no undeniable proof either way

but Mayo is still not retracting that "atheism is the only rational position" statement

he also claims to be a weak or agnostic atheist despite that statement which could only come from a strong or gnostic (or very close to gnostic) atheist

tl;dr version, this idiot got out of line and went out of rationality to say that atheism is the only rational position but he won't back down cuz he's an idiot

 

[Type Username Here]

​

Well considering that his religion has been documented with their opposition to science, I think this about the dumbest picture you have ever posted fellow Teufelshunden.