i can't figure out quite why religious folk regardless of their upbringing...

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Their theism says nothing about their contributions to science.

That isn't the argument. This is.....

I AM smarter than people who believe in god.

Where is your evidence to support your claim against those two people?

​

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Resent the idea that when we die, out bodies return to whence it came and the energy within us simply seeps into eternity. no suffering, no paradise, no memory, just simple non-existence, all you are at that point is a collection of memories in the still existing minds of those who knew you. why is fading into obscurity such a horrible thing to them?




Also, lets keep the trolling and flame wars at a minimal please

​

 

[A.J.Soprano]

People are emotional beings and don't like the idea of simply not existenting after death


as long as people are emotional like that religion will always exist



Emotion overrides logic and reason any day of the week

 

[kevm3]

All I've shown is that religious people:

1. Don't know what they're talking about

2. Haven't stood with the burden of proof

3. Have easily misinformed or debunked views.

Its rather easy to challenge anything theists say.

And since you believe you're smarter than everyone, why don't you actually show us what your philosophy or beliefs are on the matter. It's easy to hold someone else's doctrine under scrutiny. Put up your own to examination and we'll see how it'll hold up. This should be simple since you are on a different intellectual plane from the religious. How was the universe started and where is your proof? How does complete nonintelligence, disorder, and randomness create intelligent beings and a universe filled with order? In order for 'rationality' to exist there has to be REASON. Where did this reason and order come from and how did it come from a completely unreasonable source?

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

That isn't the argument. This is.....



Where is your evidence to support your claim against those two people?

​

They have religious barriers to contend with that I don't.

When things get too close for comfort, they just shy away and take the religious approach.

Not only does that not answer anything, it prevents actual discovery and conversation from taking place.

Here is a debate you might find interesting.

The guy next to Dinesh D'Souza is a born again christian (like Francis Collins) named Ian Hutchinson. He's a physicist at MIT...

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqlWyCGX5VM[/ame]

But he's debating Lawrence Krauss on the otherside who is also a physicist.

If you note what Hutchinson always does, whenever it gets to an answer he doesn't like, he just invokes religion instead of applying the same rationale he applies to his studies and research, to his religious views.

 

[A.J.Soprano]

And since you believe you're smarter than everyone, why don't you actually show us what your philosophy or beliefs are on the matter. It's easy to hold someone else's doctrine under scrutiny. Put up your own to examination and we'll see how it'll hold up. This should be simple since you are on a different intellectual plane from the religious. How was the universe started and where is your proof? How does complete nonintelligence, disorder, and randomness create intelligent beings and a universe filled with order? In order for 'rationality' to exist there has to be REASON. Where did this reason and order come from and how did it come from a completely unreasonable source?

Repeating myself here but the intellectually honest thing to do is to simply admit "I don't know" instead of blindly subscribing to stone age mythical explanations that are really no different than the answers found in Greek mythology and other extinct religions.



"We don't know at the moment...but hopefully as time passes we'll learn more, but in the meantime heres what we do know and this is how we know it".... >>>>> "I have all the answers already because "God" told me. Just take my word for it" (also nevermind the fact that the holy book I subscribe to was heavily edited and chopped up for political reasons over the centuries....its still Gods word)......




Which philosophy one sounds more reasonable to you?

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

And since you believe you're smarter than everyone, why don't you actually show us what your philosophy or beliefs are on the matter.

I don't claim my views on how I think society should be run as absolute nor do I hold any of the tenets to be objective in all situations.

It's easy to hold someone else's doctrine under scrutiny.

We're talking about assertions religious people put forth, not guesses or speculation about things things like who will win the super bowl or political thoughts.

Religious people make claims in the form of absolutism that deserve to be put to the test to see if they stand up.

Put up your own to examination and we'll see how it'll hold up.

I don't make objective assertions. Thats the thing.

Theists do.

This should be simple since you are on a different intellectual plane from the religious.

If you want to know where I really am: I'm more of an existential nihlist...with secular humanist tendancies.

But thats just how I think society should be ordered....it says nothing about what I proclaim to objectively assert, nor does it say anything that I claim to KNOW about the order of the universe.

How was the universe started and where is your proof?

I don't fully know. Does that mean there was a jewish prophet in the middle east 2000 years ago?

BTW, evidence suggests the "big bang"...and proof rests in things like the doppler shift and gravitational lensing for example...

How does complete nonintelligence, disorder, and randomness create intelligent beings and a universe filled with order?

If you've at least had organic or inorganic chemistry and know a little biology or anthropology (more specifically microbiology) abiogenesis kinda handles this. Panspermia is also interesting.

In order for 'rationality' to exist there has to be REASON

Its not an objective thing. Its an attempt at maintaining consistency.

If you study philosophy, one of the first things you SHOULD have learned was about the limits of what you can actually know, or more specifically EPISTEMOLOGY.

Where did this reason and order come from and how did it come from a completely unreasonable source?

Altruism is a general trait found in social species resulting from the desire to form communities and maintain populations.

BUT...even if I couldn't answer that, it doesn't therefore mean your god (in your specific flavor).

Using: I don't know or can't think of something therefore God did it, doesn't answer anything, nor does it bring any closer to even evaluating what you do know or could learn.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

They have religious barriers to contend with that I don't.

it prevents actual discovery and conversation from taking place.

Still waiting on you to prove this claim.....

I AM smarter than people who believe in god.

 

[A.J.Soprano]

​

Darwin through his religion in the bushes....


like any intellectually honest person whose only allegiance was the pursuit of what's actually true and not whats emotionally satisfying would do



and He struggled with that.



I was when I first realized Jesus was Tooth Fairy status myself also.

 

[Dafunkdoc_Unlimited]

Darwin through his religion in the bushes....

​

 

[Zapp Brannigan]

Honestly, knowing that I only have one life and that it's going to be exceptionally short in comparison to the rest of the duration of the universe, I just feel a powerful compulsion to love what I have so much more. That combined with the fact that each and every one of us is so statistically unlikely to exist, I have to appreciate the fact that I'm even here.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Still waiting on you to prove this claim.....


​

I like how you ignore the other quotes of Galileo that basically shyt on the church or the fact that they didn't even know much about modern biology or astrophysics.

I don't blame religious people entirely before Darwin or Mendel simple because thy really didnt know enough about the world to justifiably come to understand that their religious inclinations were all but misguided.

You also have to remember that churches had all the money and funded most of the research that started the enlightenment...however when things were discovered that challenged the foundation of the church, they imposed penalties like the ones we see on Galileo etc.


AND I stand by my original assertion because if you're investigating something and you're not willing to put EVERYTHING you know up to evaluation, then you're not justifiably and uniformly assesing the root of what you're researching.

Researchers that still believe in god aren't being thorough enough in the application of their methodology because they've shown that they will accept a claim based on what they want to be true when there is no evidence to even support the claim. Its dishonest and inconsistent. You can't approach efforts to draw conclusions reasonably that way.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

First sentence is on point. Christianity specifically is a very self-serving religion (e.g "somebody died for me", "jesus loves me", "jesus is coming back for me", etc). But I don't hate any religion I also don't throw out the possibility of there being a higher power. I don't think it's worth arguing over either, because at the end of the day nobody knows shyt.

Thats the thing. I don't claim to know. Religious people do...but they never prove what they claim to know.

Faith is what happens when people can't prove anything they're saying and dont have a good reason for believing it.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

"God doesn't exist so let me dedicate hours a day typing long ass paragraphs about him."

Your soul knows God exists, it's just a one.

1. What is a soul? Where is it and what does it do and what does it look like?

2. I care if whats being discussed is accurate and I take great pride in being able to express myself in a way that maintains the integrity of the topics being discussed. If your god concept wasn't so faulty, maybe you'd have a better time defending it. Its not my job to represent your ideas FOR you.

 

[semtex]

[ame]https://twitter.com/religiouscritic/status/351670460691382272[/ame]