Atheism; An Intellectual Dead End

[sealybobo]

Good thing these scholars don't base their perception of rational thought on their own emotionalism.

I'm not sure what that means but what I do know is theists believe because they want to believe. Not because there's any good evidence.

Oh really, you're not sure what that means? But you're so certain about the meaning of everything else. Strange.

You're not smart

“I would love to believe that when I die I will live again, that some thinking, feeling, remembering part of me will continue. But much as I want to believe that, and despite the ancient and worldwide cultural traditions that assert an afterlife, I know of nothing to suggest that it is more than wishful thinking. The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there’s little good evidence. Far better it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides.” – Carl Sagan

“I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it.” – Mark Twain

This might almost be interesting if you had any actual thoughts of your own.

You haven't understood a word I've said yet so I'm showing you what Carl Sagan and Mark Twain have to say. Now you want me to go back to my own thoughts which you don't understand? Forget it.

If you don't like my thoughts or Sagan's or Twain's then I think your goal is to just frustrate us into leaving this forum.

Talking to you is the intellectual dead end.

 

[sealybobo]

Good thing these scholars don't base their perception of rational thought on their own emotionalism.

I'm not sure what that means but what I do know is theists believe because they want to believe. Not because there's any good evidence.

Oh really, you're not sure what that means? But you're so certain about the meaning of everything else. Strange.

You're not smart

“I would love to believe that when I die I will live again, that some thinking, feeling, remembering part of me will continue. But much as I want to believe that, and despite the ancient and worldwide cultural traditions that assert an afterlife, I know of nothing to suggest that it is more than wishful thinking. The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there’s little good evidence. Far better it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides.” – Carl Sagan

“I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it.” – Mark Twain

This might almost be interesting if you had any actual thoughts of your own.

It might be interesting if you were capable of rational thought.

The truth is, life is a dead end. Eventually everyone dies. Your end ends with you dying ='s dead end.

 

[Constructive Anarchy]

Good thing these scholars don't base their perception of rational thought on their own emotionalism.

I'm not sure what that means but what I do know is theists believe because they want to believe. Not because there's any good evidence.

Oh really, you're not sure what that means? But you're so certain about the meaning of everything else. Strange.

You're not smart

“I would love to believe that when I die I will live again, that some thinking, feeling, remembering part of me will continue. But much as I want to believe that, and despite the ancient and worldwide cultural traditions that assert an afterlife, I know of nothing to suggest that it is more than wishful thinking. The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there’s little good evidence. Far better it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides.” – Carl Sagan

“I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it.” – Mark Twain

This might almost be interesting if you had any actual thoughts of your own.

You haven't understood a word I've said yet so I'm showing you what Carl Sagan and Mark Twain have to say. Now you want me to go back to my own thoughts which you don't understand? Forget it.

If you don't like my thoughts or Sagan's or Twain's then I think your goal is to just frustrate us into leaving this forum.

Talking to you is the intellectual dead end.

Let's try listening to a reasonable, intelligent atheist explain why you're having this problem with communication. Maybe he can be a model for how your arguments should be constructed, but only if you want them to be compelling and interesting arguments.

 

[Constructive Anarchy]

Good thing these scholars don't base their perception of rational thought on their own emotionalism.

I'm not sure what that means but what I do know is theists believe because they want to believe. Not because there's any good evidence.

Oh really, you're not sure what that means? But you're so certain about the meaning of everything else. Strange.

You're not smart

“I would love to believe that when I die I will live again, that some thinking, feeling, remembering part of me will continue. But much as I want to believe that, and despite the ancient and worldwide cultural traditions that assert an afterlife, I know of nothing to suggest that it is more than wishful thinking. The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there’s little good evidence. Far better it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides.” – Carl Sagan

“I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it.” – Mark Twain

This might almost be interesting if you had any actual thoughts of your own.

It might be interesting if you were capable of rational thought.

It might be amazing if you knew what that looked like.

 

[sealybobo]

Good thing these scholars don't base their perception of rational thought on their own emotionalism.

[/QUOTE]
It might be interesting if you were capable of rational thought.[/QUOTE]

He said, "Good thing these scholars don't base their perception of rational thought on their own emotionalism."

Maybe I'm stupid but what the fuck does that mean? Maybe the religious retard can explain this one for us idiots.

Is he one of those Dennis Miller types who are too smart for the room? Because I keep reading that comment over and over again and its not making any sense.

I'm not sure what that means but what I do know is theists believe because they want to believe. Not because there's any good evidence.

Oh really, you're not sure what that means? But you're so certain about the meaning of everything else. Strange.

You're not smart

“I would love to believe that when I die I will live again, that some thinking, feeling, remembering part of me will continue. But much as I want to believe that, and despite the ancient and worldwide cultural traditions that assert an afterlife, I know of nothing to suggest that it is more than wishful thinking. The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there’s little good evidence. Far better it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides.” – Carl Sagan

“I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it.” – Mark Twain

This might almost be interesting if you had any actual thoughts of your own.

You haven't understood a word I've said yet so I'm showing you what Carl Sagan and Mark Twain have to say. Now you want me to go back to my own thoughts which you don't understand? Forget it.

If you don't like my thoughts or Sagan's or Twain's then I think your goal is to just frustrate us into leaving this forum.

Talking to you is the intellectual dead end.

Let's try listening to a reasonable, intelligent atheist explain why you're having this problem with communication. Maybe he can be a model for how your arguments should be constructed, but only if you want them to be compelling and interesting arguments.

Just like you don't like reading Sagan quotes, I'm not watching your videos. They get me too emotionalism.

 

[BreezeWood]

You really do need to quit basing your understanding of the universe on outdated models. This is why your conclusions keep falling short. With the Quantum Gravity Loop, there is no beginning, or end to the universe, and this is accomplished without loss of available energy. With no beginning, there is no "Primary Source" - no God necessary.


Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics says otherwise. It's that whole usable energy thingee.

Nope. Quantum mechanics proves this to be inaccurate.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

So from what we know our current universe started 14 billion years ago but what was before that? My guess is the universe before ours was contracting after it first expanded for about 25 billion years.

The point is we don't know for sure and I'm open to all scientific theories.

The good thing about not believing a scientific theory is you won't burn in hell for eternity if you are wrong.

.

So from what we know our current universe started 14 billion years ago but what was before that? My guess is the universe before ours was contracting after it first expanded for about 25 billion years.

The point is we don't know for sure and I'm open to all scientific theories.

was contracting after it first expanded ...


matter en-mass expanding at a finite angle in vacuum is a loop that re-converges back to its origin - BB is a loop, there never is contraction.

.

If you say so ok.

.
was meant as an alternative to contraction is all and as an explanation for both before and after Singularity.

 

[sealybobo]

I'm not sure what that means but what I do know is theists believe because they want to believe. Not because there's any good evidence.

Oh really, you're not sure what that means? But you're so certain about the meaning of everything else. Strange.

You're not smart

“I would love to believe that when I die I will live again, that some thinking, feeling, remembering part of me will continue. But much as I want to believe that, and despite the ancient and worldwide cultural traditions that assert an afterlife, I know of nothing to suggest that it is more than wishful thinking. The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there’s little good evidence. Far better it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides.” – Carl Sagan

“I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it.” – Mark Twain

This might almost be interesting if you had any actual thoughts of your own.

It might be interesting if you were capable of rational thought.

It might be amazing if you knew what that looked like.

It looks like this



He looks like he is very emotionalism.

 

[Czernobog]

I'm not sure what that means but what I do know is theists believe because they want to believe. Not because there's any good evidence.

Oh really, you're not sure what that means? But you're so certain about the meaning of everything else. Strange.

You're not smart

“I would love to believe that when I die I will live again, that some thinking, feeling, remembering part of me will continue. But much as I want to believe that, and despite the ancient and worldwide cultural traditions that assert an afterlife, I know of nothing to suggest that it is more than wishful thinking. The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there’s little good evidence. Far better it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides.” – Carl Sagan

“I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it.” – Mark Twain

This might almost be interesting if you had any actual thoughts of your own.

It might be interesting if you were capable of rational thought.

It might be amazing if you knew what that looked like.

We'll, it certainly doesn't look like any of the drivel that you have been drooling all over this thread. Tell you what. I agree with Seelybobo. You are not worth conversing with, as you have nothing of value to say. Off to ignore land with you.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Mudda]

While you may not "mention God", because you have spent the entire thread attacking atheists, it is a fair presumption that you are a theist. The flavour of theist is rather irrelevant, now isn't it? Or are you suggesting that you ar an atheist who hates atheists? That would seem to be a rather self-defeating position, don't you think?

Again, you make presumptions without evidence. And of course you need to personalize when you just can't seem to make your alleged argument. Your post only serves as further evidence of the intellectual dead end of atheism.

Without evidence? Again, your choice to attack atheists is the evidence. I made nothing personal. I referred to your attack on atheists. I said nothing about myself. Your actions indicate that you are a theist. And your response to my post confirms you are a theist; I notice you didn't deny being a theist. You just attacked, again. What I don't understand is why it bothers you so much being exposed as a theist.

No part of any of your remarks logically follow any of my "actions" . And yes, you constantly have to personalize with unfounded speculation. It's no wonder you're an atheist.....your brain is broken. You can't think. You only react based upon the most primitive of instincts.

So, you are denying that you have spent this entire thread attacking atheists? You do not suppose that calling atheists intellectually dead is an attack on atheists? Really?

Making you like me, an agnostic.

Which way do you lean? If you lean towards disbelief then you're an agnostic atheist. Not just an undecided agnostic.

Are all agnostics equally unsure?

The reason we aren't agnostics is because then theists think they can convince us. What do you call an unconvincable agnostic?

So are you saying there are only two types of people? Theists and agnostics? Because no one can say for sure there is no God. In that case there are no theists either because they aren't sure either. They think they are sure but so do we.

I am smack right in the middle, I see no proof either way, as well as not taking any side, and the first side to show me actual proof will get my vote.

.

I am smack right in the middle, I see no proof either way, as well as not taking any side, and the first side to show me actual proof will get my vote.

are you a releasable Spirit from your physiology .... if so are there others, might there not be an Almighty or a committee of the same and the origin of the genome of life that is managed within that dimension including physicality.

.

Nothing in the real world points to your conclusion. Could be, just show me some real proof.

There is no evidence god doesn’t exist, so belief is as justified or as valid as non-belief.
Argument from ignorance.

A common attempt to shift the burden of proof or ‘make room’ for a god. Represents a type of false dichotomy that excludes the fact that there is insufficient investigation and the proposition has not yet been proven either true or false.

The failure to disprove the existence of something does not constitute proof of its existence.

Belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims because all such claims would need to be believed implicitly. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.

Note: It is possible to gather evidence of absence and disprove specific claims about and definitions of a god.

Not what I'd say, but I see no proof that suggests that a god is not possible. If you have any, please share.

 

[Constructive Anarchy]

Good thing these scholars don't base their perception of rational thought on their own emotionalism.

It might be interesting if you were capable of rational thought.[/QUOTE]

He said, "Good thing these scholars don't base their perception of rational thought on their own emotionalism."

Maybe I'm stupid but what the fuck does that mean? Maybe the religious retard can explain this one for us idiots.

Is he one of those Dennis Miller types who are too smart for the room? Because I keep reading that comment over and over again and its not making any sense.

Oh really, you're not sure what that means? But you're so certain about the meaning of everything else. Strange.

You're not smart

“I would love to believe that when I die I will live again, that some thinking, feeling, remembering part of me will continue. But much as I want to believe that, and despite the ancient and worldwide cultural traditions that assert an afterlife, I know of nothing to suggest that it is more than wishful thinking. The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there’s little good evidence. Far better it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides.” – Carl Sagan

“I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it.” – Mark Twain

This might almost be interesting if you had any actual thoughts of your own.

You haven't understood a word I've said yet so I'm showing you what Carl Sagan and Mark Twain have to say. Now you want me to go back to my own thoughts which you don't understand? Forget it.

If you don't like my thoughts or Sagan's or Twain's then I think your goal is to just frustrate us into leaving this forum.

Talking to you is the intellectual dead end.

Let's try listening to a reasonable, intelligent atheist explain why you're having this problem with communication. Maybe he can be a model for how your arguments should be constructed, but only if you want them to be compelling and interesting arguments.

Just like you don't like reading Sagan quotes, I'm not watching your videos. They get me too emotionalism.[/QUOTE]


I guess it's just unfortunate that your alleged rational thinking is so fundamentally influenced by your emotions.

 

[Constructive Anarchy]

Oh really, you're not sure what that means? But you're so certain about the meaning of everything else. Strange.

You're not smart

“I would love to believe that when I die I will live again, that some thinking, feeling, remembering part of me will continue. But much as I want to believe that, and despite the ancient and worldwide cultural traditions that assert an afterlife, I know of nothing to suggest that it is more than wishful thinking. The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there’s little good evidence. Far better it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides.” – Carl Sagan

“I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it.” – Mark Twain

This might almost be interesting if you had any actual thoughts of your own.

It might be interesting if you were capable of rational thought.

It might be amazing if you knew what that looked like.

We'll, it certainly doesn't look like any of the drivel that you have been drooling all over this thread. Tell you what. I agree with Seelybobo. You are not worth conversing with, as you have nothing of value to say. Off to ignore land with you.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

I can't begin to tell you what a crushing blow that is. I'm very sad now.

 

[Mudda]

Making you like me, an agnostic.

Which way do you lean? If you lean towards disbelief then you're an agnostic atheist. Not just an undecided agnostic.

Are all agnostics equally unsure?

The reason we aren't agnostics is because then theists think they can convince us. What do you call an unconvincable agnostic?

So are you saying there are only two types of people? Theists and agnostics? Because no one can say for sure there is no God. In that case there are no theists either because they aren't sure either. They think they are sure but so do we.

I am smack right in the middle, I see no proof either way, as well as not taking any side, and the first side to show me actual proof will get my vote.

.

I am smack right in the middle, I see no proof either way, as well as not taking any side, and the first side to show me actual proof will get my vote.

are you a releasable Spirit from your physiology .... if so are there others, might there not be an Almighty or a committee of the same and the origin of the genome of life that is managed within that dimension including physicality.

.

Nothing in the real world points to your conclusion. Could be, just show me some real proof.

Maybe this will help:

Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims is unknown or unknowable. It is a philosophical position not necessarily tied to god’s existence or non-existence. One can be agnostic about any claim. The word originates from the Ancient Greek meaning “without knowledge”.

Most atheists fall into the category of ‘Agnostic Atheism’ – they don’t claim to know with certainty that god does not exist. Conversely, most theists are ‘Gnostic Theists’ – they claim to know with certainty that their particular god exists.

When most atheists say “God does not exist” they are generally speaking in the same manner as when people say “Leprechauns/Santa Claus/Fairies/Unicorns don’t exist” – those things do not appear exist within contextual reality in which we find ourselves but, importantly, the statement is not necessarily an absolute one.

There are, however, gnostic atheists who are certain no god exists and they generally point to logical problems that would arise from said god’s existence or evidence this universe is inconsistent with a god, for example:

• Infinite Regression
• Argument from Poor Design
• The Atheist’s Wager
• Non-belief Paradox
• Omnipotence Paradox
• Free Will Paradox
• Argument from locality
• Argument from Non-reason
• Argument from incompatible properties
• Fate of the Unlearned
• Problem of Evil and Problem of Hell

These are all real world arguments against god. Are you smart enough to think this through or do you just want to stay a retard on the fence?

I know, different people have different definitions of the word agnostic. My view is that there's no proof either way for or against a god and if anyone ever finds any either way, I'm open to changing my mind. Can't be any fairer than that.
So that's what I call agnostic, maybe for lack of a more specific term?

 

[Mudda]

Atheists are just as deluded as theists as there's no proof that a god can't exist.

No one has ever suggested that God can't exist. Only that the default presumption is that God doesn't exist until such time as objective evidence proves otherwise.

Making you like me, an agnostic.

Again, that is just a diplomatic term used to not offend theists. Either you believe that there is a God or you don't. One is theist, or atheist. If one is atheist, one is a strong atheist - confident in their position - or they are not. You are not confidentin your position, so you don't eant to offend anyone. Thus you call yourslef an agnostic. But the fact remains that you believe in the existence of deity no more than I do. I am just more confident in my position than you.

I see no proof of a god, of that I am 100% sure. But I also see no proof that a god isn't possible, also 100% sure of that.

If is not a question of the possible. It is a question of the probable. Literally anything is possible. Some things, however are highly improbable.

It is possible that, one day, someone may provide irrefutable objective evidence in support of the existence of divinity. However, in light of millennia of failure to do so, I find the prospect highly unlikely. So, I am not afraid to insult theists by maintaining my continues position that, until such evidence is presented, I will stand by my conviction that God does not exist.

However, lime any rational person, I am more than willing to abandon that position once evidence to the contrary is presented.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

So you admit that a god is possible, just unproven so far. You're an agnostic. Good for you.

 

[Czernobog]

No one has ever suggested that God can't exist. Only that the default presumption is that God doesn't exist until such time as objective evidence proves otherwise.

Making you like me, an agnostic.

Again, that is just a diplomatic term used to not offend theists. Either you believe that there is a God or you don't. One is theist, or atheist. If one is atheist, one is a strong atheist - confident in their position - or they are not. You are not confidentin your position, so you don't eant to offend anyone. Thus you call yourslef an agnostic. But the fact remains that you believe in the existence of deity no more than I do. I am just more confident in my position than you.

I see no proof of a god, of that I am 100% sure. But I also see no proof that a god isn't possible, also 100% sure of that.

If is not a question of the possible. It is a question of the probable. Literally anything is possible. Some things, however are highly improbable.

It is possible that, one day, someone may provide irrefutable objective evidence in support of the existence of divinity. However, in light of millennia of failure to do so, I find the prospect highly unlikely. So, I am not afraid to insult theists by maintaining my continues position that, until such evidence is presented, I will stand by my conviction that God does not exist.

However, lime any rational person, I am more than willing to abandon that position once evidence to the contrary is presented.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

So you admit that a god is possible, just unproven so far. You're an agnostic. Good for you.

If that makes you more comfortable, then more power to you. I, myself, am not ashamed of my atheism, so I have no problem identifying as an atheist. Why would you be so disturbed by your atheism?

 

[sealybobo]

Oh really, you're not sure what that means? But you're so certain about the meaning of everything else. Strange.

You're not smart

“I would love to believe that when I die I will live again, that some thinking, feeling, remembering part of me will continue. But much as I want to believe that, and despite the ancient and worldwide cultural traditions that assert an afterlife, I know of nothing to suggest that it is more than wishful thinking. The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there’s little good evidence. Far better it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides.” – Carl Sagan

“I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it.” – Mark Twain

This might almost be interesting if you had any actual thoughts of your own.

It might be interesting if you were capable of rational thought.

It might be amazing if you knew what that looked like.

We'll, it certainly doesn't look like any of the drivel that you have been drooling all over this thread. Tell you what. I agree with Seelybobo. You are not worth conversing with, as you have nothing of value to say. Off to ignore land with you.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Ha ha. You see constructive you are fairly new to usmb so I will cut you some slack. You don't just jump in to a conversation and spout nonsense and expect to get any points for that here. That might be OK in politics but not here. This is a no bs zone. If you have a point make it. Don't talk to us like we are stupid because it's you who believes in agod who watches and cares when you masturbate.

And I don't think there's a point you can make that hasn't already been made.

We want you traditional Christians to be more like the Jews and Mormons. They aren't trying to get us to be a Mormon or Jewish nation. I think that's when you guys pushed us atheists too far.

So if you have a point to make make it. Don't be condescending. You aren't trying to convince us youre trying to convince yourselves.

Hopefully one day you'll realize Christianity ain't for everybody.

 

[Mudda]

Making you like me, an agnostic.

Again, that is just a diplomatic term used to not offend theists. Either you believe that there is a God or you don't. One is theist, or atheist. If one is atheist, one is a strong atheist - confident in their position - or they are not. You are not confidentin your position, so you don't eant to offend anyone. Thus you call yourslef an agnostic. But the fact remains that you believe in the existence of deity no more than I do. I am just more confident in my position than you.

I see no proof of a god, of that I am 100% sure. But I also see no proof that a god isn't possible, also 100% sure of that.

If is not a question of the possible. It is a question of the probable. Literally anything is possible. Some things, however are highly improbable.

It is possible that, one day, someone may provide irrefutable objective evidence in support of the existence of divinity. However, in light of millennia of failure to do so, I find the prospect highly unlikely. So, I am not afraid to insult theists by maintaining my continues position that, until such evidence is presented, I will stand by my conviction that God does not exist.

However, lime any rational person, I am more than willing to abandon that position once evidence to the contrary is presented.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

So you admit that a god is possible, just unproven so far. You're an agnostic. Good for you.

If that makes you more comfortable, then more power to you. I, myself, am not ashamed of my atheism, so I have no problem identifying as an atheist. Why would you be so disturbed by your atheism?

An atheist thinks that there is no god. Some go further and say that god is not possible. Plus, atheists are usually kinda obnoxious.

 

[Constructive Anarchy]

I wonder when one of these atheist scholars is going to make an actual argument in support of the atheist viewpoint? They seem to have missed that part.

 

[ScienceRocks]

weird, believing in a god is the intellectual dead end based on all the evidence...There's no evidence for it.

 

[Czernobog]

I wonder when one of these atheist scholars is going to make an actual argument in support of the atheist viewpoint? They seem to have missed that part.

I guess I need to mute you on Tapatalk, too. You apparently haven't been paying attention. The "argument in support of the atheist viewpoint" is rather simple, and straightforward:

Rational intellect demands that one never accept as true anything for which there is no objective evidence. The key to that position is objective. There is no objective evidence supporting the existence of God, therefore it is irrational to simply accept the existence of such. That's it. That is the argument in favour of atheism. Rather simple, and straight forward.

Now, the theist is going to bring up a bunch of irrelevant theories that are scientifically accepted - Evolution, and "The Big Bang" most noteably. However, in the case of these theories, there is evidence to support them. Should evidence come to light that indicate that they are inaccurate, or incomplete, then those theories will be replaced by theories that more accurately fit the evidence that is presented.

This is the point of the quantum gravity loop theory of which I have alluded several times during this discussion. Evidence has been discovered for which the Big Bang could not account, so it has been replaced with a theory that does fit the evidence presented.

This is rather the difference between atheists, and Theists. Atheists, being drivien by reason, have no problem discarding outdated, and untenable theories for new ones as evidence is discovered. Theists need all roads to point to divinity, so, rather than discarding their emotional grip on divinity, they must constantly find ways to atempt to force any new evidence discovered to fit with their "God fantasy" that they are incapable of relinquishing.

This, simply, is the support of atheism: that it is rational, and logically, because it is never based on emotion, or superstition, but on facts, and evidence presented.

 

[Czernobog]

Again, that is just a diplomatic term used to not offend theists. Either you believe that there is a God or you don't. One is theist, or atheist. If one is atheist, one is a strong atheist - confident in their position - or they are not. You are not confidentin your position, so you don't eant to offend anyone. Thus you call yourslef an agnostic. But the fact remains that you believe in the existence of deity no more than I do. I am just more confident in my position than you.

I see no proof of a god, of that I am 100% sure. But I also see no proof that a god isn't possible, also 100% sure of that.

If is not a question of the possible. It is a question of the probable. Literally anything is possible. Some things, however are highly improbable.

It is possible that, one day, someone may provide irrefutable objective evidence in support of the existence of divinity. However, in light of millennia of failure to do so, I find the prospect highly unlikely. So, I am not afraid to insult theists by maintaining my continues position that, until such evidence is presented, I will stand by my conviction that God does not exist.

However, lime any rational person, I am more than willing to abandon that position once evidence to the contrary is presented.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

So you admit that a god is possible, just unproven so far. You're an agnostic. Good for you.

If that makes you more comfortable, then more power to you. I, myself, am not ashamed of my atheism, so I have no problem identifying as an atheist. Why would you be so disturbed by your atheism?

An atheist thinks that there is no god. Some go further and say that god is not possible. Plus, atheists are usually kinda obnoxious.

If you say so. I would say that theists are the obnoxious ones - particularly the Theists of the "Big Three" flavour (welll...two of the 'Big Three", anyway - Jews don't really seem to care if anyone converts to their religion. They seem perfectly happy living, and letting live); constantly trying to push themselves on everyone, and using every means possible, including the government, to force their views on everyone else.