Atheism; An Intellectual Dead End

[hobelim]

No, whatever preacher influenced you as a child told you to just believe. Thats not what I am suggesting.

I am not saying for you to just believe in God and then you will feel good. I am not suggesting that you must join a religion or accept the existence of God without any evidence. That would be a scam.

Obviously your mind has been affected by your experiences with religion. You say you will never believe in God absent of evidence. I wouldn't either. You say you work on what you observe but then dismiss my suggestion to purify your thoughts so that you might actually be capable of observing evidence of God.


As a scientist would you conduct an experiment to determine the truth of something without first sterilizing and calibrating the instruments that will be used to test the theory and measure the results?

Can a scientist rely on any conclusion based on what was seen through a filthy lens?


Purify your mind and you will see God, not as a figment of an unrestrained imagination but as a living being whose existence is absolute.

That's just it; evidence either exists, or it doesn't. It doesn't require a pure heart to be seen. I don't need a pure heart, or mind, to see the evidence of gravity. I need only drop a ball. I can be as pure as a saint, or as vile as a paedophile, and the evidence will be exactly the same.

Nothing that requires the "right mind-set" to experience is real, nor objective. Guess what? If I take the right drugs I'll hear God's voice. That isn't real, either.

Either God exists, and there is objective evidence to support that claim, or he doesn't, and there isn't.

And if such objective evidence exists, that means, by definition, that it is observable by everyone, period. Full stop. Not just the "pure of heart", but everyone.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Your logic is impeccable except you haven't included in your speculations that for a living being to qualify as God it would have to be incorporeal. Microscopes, telescopes, test tubes and beakers are consequently worthless.

For a human being to accurately perceive that which is incorporeal he would have to purify what is incorporeal in him, the conscious mind.

For everyone to have hold of objective evidence everyone would just have to stop screwing up each others minds.

Its a jungle out there.....Get real.

There's another word for what you are descibing - imagined. Gracvity is "incorporeal" as you put it. There is nothing to see, touch,taste, or smell. Yet, it is possible to observe gravity in action. It is posible to test for the existence of gravity, and to repeat the effects of gravity, and no "purity of spirit" necessary. Either a thing exists, or it doesn't. If it only exists for those "in the right mind-set" then it isn't real; it is the product of one's imagination.

No, gravity is not incorporeal. Gravity is a force directly related and connected to matter in the material universe.

Let me put it this way. If a person wants to understand calculous, they must apply their mind to learn it. If a person does not do what is necessary to learn, they will never understand calculous.

Only those who do, will. Its as simple as that.


In the same way I told you the way to prepare your mind in order to be capable of seeing God.. If you do not take the steps necessary God will remain hidden from you,not because he is not there, but because you have chosen to remain blind.

No matter how many different ways you try to say it, your position is always the same: God will become real for you, if you let yourself believe in God with out any actual evidence.

And, hey. I'm glad that makes you feel better. Go, live in peace. I am not willing, or able to do that. I need evidence to inform my percepton, rather than letting my perception order evidence to fit it.

I did not say that God will become real for you if you believe.

In fact I said the exact opposite.

Start off without any belief or unsubstantiated assumption, including your own certainty that the universe was not poofed into existence as described according to genesis, because thats not what the story is even about.

Maybe before you conclude that scripture is false you should know what the stories are actually about?

If you want to dismiss the entire bible as nonsense because snakes cant talk you will deprive yourself of the insight that whenever you are disputing with someone who claims to believe that God became a man you are arguing with the exact same elusive species of talking serpent described in great detail in the very scriptures that you do not believe in.

Its really no skin off my nose if you continue to walk in darkness wasting your time.

Believers will believe in what the stories are not about till kingdom come and unbelievers will continue to not believe in what the stories are not about till kingdom come , both of you as clueless as basket of shrews..

 

[hobelim]

I rather think I have a rather pure mind. I have a rather strong understanding of right from wrong.

If you read genesis and did not immediately realize that a talking serpent represents a type of human being, you are not as swift as you like to imagine yourself to be.....

What you have done amounts to arguing that the story of the three pigs is false because there is no scientific evidence that pigs ever talked or built houses even though the story is not about talking pigs building houses and consequently what it is actually about remains above your grasp.



How do you expect to perceive the living God who is unseen when you can't even perceive what a story written by bronze age goat herders is about even though the words are written down and you can look and look and look at them under a microscope all day long?

 

[Czernobog]

That's just it; evidence either exists, or it doesn't. It doesn't require a pure heart to be seen. I don't need a pure heart, or mind, to see the evidence of gravity. I need only drop a ball. I can be as pure as a saint, or as vile as a paedophile, and the evidence will be exactly the same.

Nothing that requires the "right mind-set" to experience is real, nor objective. Guess what? If I take the right drugs I'll hear God's voice. That isn't real, either.

Either God exists, and there is objective evidence to support that claim, or he doesn't, and there isn't.

And if such objective evidence exists, that means, by definition, that it is observable by everyone, period. Full stop. Not just the "pure of heart", but everyone.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Your logic is impeccable except you haven't included in your speculations that for a living being to qualify as God it would have to be incorporeal. Microscopes, telescopes, test tubes and beakers are consequently worthless.

For a human being to accurately perceive that which is incorporeal he would have to purify what is incorporeal in him, the conscious mind.

For everyone to have hold of objective evidence everyone would just have to stop screwing up each others minds.

Its a jungle out there.....Get real.

There's another word for what you are descibing - imagined. Gracvity is "incorporeal" as you put it. There is nothing to see, touch,taste, or smell. Yet, it is possible to observe gravity in action. It is posible to test for the existence of gravity, and to repeat the effects of gravity, and no "purity of spirit" necessary. Either a thing exists, or it doesn't. If it only exists for those "in the right mind-set" then it isn't real; it is the product of one's imagination.

No, gravity is not incorporeal. Gravity is a force directly related and connected to matter in the material universe.

Let me put it this way. If a person wants to understand calculous, they must apply their mind to learn it. If a person does not do what is necessary to learn, they will never understand calculous.

Only those who do, will. Its as simple as that.


In the same way I told you the way to prepare your mind in order to be capable of seeing God.. If you do not take the steps necessary God will remain hidden from you,not because he is not there, but because you have chosen to remain blind.

No matter how many different ways you try to say it, your position is always the same: God will become real for you, if you let yourself believe in God with out any actual evidence.

And, hey. I'm glad that makes you feel better. Go, live in peace. I am not willing, or able to do that. I need evidence to inform my percepton, rather than letting my perception order evidence to fit it.

I did not say that God will become real for you if you believe.

In fact I said the exact opposite.

Start off without any belief or unsubstantiated assumption, including your own certainty that the universe was not poofed into existence as described according to genesis, because thats not what the story is even about.

Maybe before you conclude that scripture is false you should know what the stories are actually about?

If you want to dismiss the entire bible as nonsense because snakes cant talk you will deprive yourself of the insight that whenever you are disputing with someone who claims to believe that God became a man you are arguing with the exact same elusive species of talking serpent described in great detail in the very scriptures that you do not believe in.

Except that's just it. The Bible was 100% accurate, incontestible fact, right up until science found evidence that the Earth revolved around the sun, and is actually spinning on its own axis. Then the stories about God stopping the sun in the sky became allegorical. But, everything else was absolutely 100% acurate, and indisputable fact! Welll...until science discovered evidence that the earth was billions of years old. Then the "days" in the creation story becam allegorical. But the rest of the Bible was still 100% indisputably accurate, factual history. Wellll...until Darwin discovered evidence to support the theory of Evolution. Then suddenly, God didn't create all of the plants, and animals personally, and individually; rather he put the "stuff' of life together, and directed the evolution...

Do you begin to see the point here, Hobelim? Every part of the Bible that is not rules and regulations is being rendered "allegorical", meaningless, and useless by the sciences. So, once there is nothing left but allegory, fables, and a set of rules, what makes the Bible any different than any other self-help book? The entire authority behind the rules in the Bible was because it was the undisputed word of god, as evidenced by the accuracy, and infalibility of the stories within.

So, with those stories all being disproven, and relegated to allegory, then where is the authority of the Bible? Where is the evidence that it is any more useful than "Men Are From Mar, Women Are From Venus"?

Its really no skin off my nose if you continue to walk in darkness wasting your time.

Believers will believe in what the stories are not about till kingdom come and unbelievers will continue to not believe in what the stories are not about till kingdom come , both of you as clueless as basket of shrews..

You seem to think that my atheism comes from rejecting just the Christian Bible. It doesn't. I mean, it started there. But, I have done all of the things you insist that one must do to have God revealed to them. And do you know what was revealed to me about God? That it is a myth; a superstition; a fantasy. Now, please do not misunderstand my words, as certain zealots here insist on doing. My telling you this, in no way, is meant to suggest that you need to give up your belief, and think as I do. I. Don't. Care. It's not my job to convert you, any more than it is your job to convert me. All of our jobs are supposed to be to live, and let live; allow everyone to find their own cosmic thruthes, whatever those may be. Unfortunately, Theists, more often than not, seem really uncomfortable with the knowledge that there are people out there who recognise their fantasies for what they are, and feel the need to do their level best to rid the world of anyone who doesn't think like them.

Me? I don't care if you wanna believe in God, any more than I care if you wanna believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, or pretty pink unicorns, and Big Fluffy Dragons. I just. Don't. Care. All I ask is to be left alone with my disbelief, and stop trying to use every means possible - up to, and including the civil laws of my government - to try and force me to behave as if I agree with your fairy tales, and the ethics derived from them.

And I am, in no way, absolute in my disbelief. If, and when, actual objective evidence is presented, I will happily change my position. However, with a pure mind, light heart, and clear conscience I can tell you that your method of revelation was exactly what brought me to my atheism.

 

[hobelim]

So, with those stories all being disproven, and relegated to allegory, then whhere is the authority of the Bible?

Screw the authority of the bible. It was written by primitive men who claimed contact with extraterrestrial creatures during some type of altered state of consciousness.

Knowing it is a myth, fable, fairy tale, allegory, whatever, does not equate with understanding the hidden story conveyed or knowing what the allegory teaches..

And I do not believe in God anymore than you believe in pink unicorns.

I have seen and heard the words of the living God with my own eyes and ears.

 

[Czernobog]

I rather think I have a rather pure mind. I have a rather strong understanding of right from wrong.

If you read genesis and did not immediately realize that a talking serpent represents a type of human beingYert, the Bible insists it happened., you are not as swift as you like to imagine yourself to be.....

What you have done amounts to arguing that the story of the three pigs is false because there is no scientific evidence that pigs ever talked or built houses even though the story is not about talking pigs building houses and consequently what it is actually about remains above your grasp.



How do you expect to perceive the living God who is unseen when you can't even perceive what a story written by bronze age goat herders is about even though the words are written down and you can look and look and look at them under a microscope all day long?

I refer you to my previous post about the bible only being considered allegorical because science keeps proving to Judaeo Christian Theists that the things they accept as factual accounts in the Bible can't possibly be. So, in order to not have to discard the Bible as made-up, they just shjift their clains to, "Well, of coures no one takes that part seriously, silly! It was just meant as allegory!"

Now, you can get away with that, right up until the historical inaccuracies in the Bible begin to be revealed. The slavery of Israel, for instance. The Egyptians were meticulous record keepers. Yet, there is not a single record of Israelites ever having been the "guests" of the Egyptians. Yet, the Bible insists it happened. What? The Egyptians just forgot to mention an entire race of people they held captive for over 150 years?!?! Or is it more likely that it just. Never. Happened? And that is just one example.

The Bible is a nice collection of fairy tales, and myths. But, that is all it is. So, if you want to convince me of divinity, I can promise you that you will not doing it by convincing me how accurate the Bible is.

 

[Czernobog]

So, with those stories all being disproven, and relegated to allegory, then whhere is the authority of the Bible?

Screw the authority of the bible. It was written by primitive men who claimed contact with extraterrestrial creatures during some type of altered state of consciousness.

Knowing it is a myth, fable, fairy tale, allegory, whatever, does not equate with understanding the hidden story conveyed or knowing what the allegory teaches..

And I do not believe in God anymore than you believe in pink unicorns.

I have seen and heard the words of the living God with my own eyes and ears.

Well, good for you. Give me his number, and I'll give him a call, and we can chat. No. Ya know what? Don't do that.

I have done all of the things you have said one needs to do to 'see" God. You think you are original?!?! You think you are the first person to give me that advice?!?! The first, and only time I took that advice seriously, the man who gave it to me didn't just tell me what I had to do; he showed me. He, and I spent years purifying my mind, body, and "soul". I did this because, tat that time I still wanted so badly to believe - to understand. And...

...I heard nothing. Nothing but my own rational mind mocking me for wasting so much time looking for something that was never there. So, by all means, please. Believe in God. Be absolutely convinced that you heard the voice of God. Shalom. But, please don't pretend that you will convince any rational person of your fantasy, and do not presume what experiences others have, and have not had in their lives. It's more than a little condescending, and offensive.

 

[Mudda]

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.

The atheists who claim that god is not possible, or that god doesn't exist are just as deluded. Just because we have no mean now to detect a god doesn't mean that there isn't one. Personally, I'll wait for the actual evidence either way.

 

[Mudda]

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?

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.

Argument from ignorance. I just explained why belief is not just as probable as disbelief. Any outrageous claims should come with evidence and I or you shouldn't need no proof to know God is simply a hypothesis you neither accept or reject. You don't have the balls to take a side

Just because we cannot presently measure something does not mean that it doesn't exist. Gravity existed long before we ever discovered it.

 

[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.

Then you must admit there is no such thing as a theist either. Do you try to make the same point to people who claim to be theists? Because they aren't any more sure there is a God than I am there is not.

The opposite of a theist is an atheist. If you aren't a theist and you had to pick one? And I'm not talking about which one you would pick if you thought hell was at stake. I'm talking about hooking you to a lie detector and holding a gun to your head and saying agnostic automatically gets you shot. So you have to be honest, do you think there's a god? You'd say no.

Do I think there's a god? Could be, but so far no actual proof. That's the best answer I can give. Just because today, we have no proof doesn't mean that something doesn't exist.
And tons of theists are 100% convinced that there's an invisible superhero.

 

[Czernobog]

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.

The atheists who claim that god is not possible, or that god doesn't exist are just as deluded. Just because we have no mean now to detect a god doesn't mean that there isn't one. Personally, I'll wait for the actual evidence either way.

Sure:

 

[Tuatara]

Move along. If you want to diffuse discourse and debate then do it somewhere else. Your assertions have been challenged. You balked. You're done.

You haven't actually challenged anything with anything.

Post 414. You made an assertion. I challenged you to provide documentation. You keep skirting it. Now put on your big boy pants and provide me with examples of your assertion. Back up your statement. You keep telling me that I didn't back mine up but my statement is for you to provide evidence of yours. How can I argue something when I have no idea what you are referring to?

Documentation of what? Anecdotal philosophy?
http://www.alternet.org/story/143674/are_the_"new_atheists"_as_bad_as_christian_fundamentalists

I thought you were talking about people here on this forum. I asked you what post and you told me to read.

Let's take a look at you link, shall we. First I see a lot of mudslinging before any evidence has been given

They are as close minded as they seem to be almost pathologically certain of their beliefs

The New Atheist movement is being led by several egomaniac intolerant fundamentalists

men who discredit whatever they're selling by their tawdry proselytizing and commercial opportunism combined with absurdly big egos and a deadly certainty that they and only they are right

egoistical internet-savvy swami posing in hagiographic photos while collecting birthday greetings and good wishes from his deluded (not terribly bright) followers.

I can see why you like him. The insults come fast and furious. Lets look at his argument shall we.
He talks about Richard Dawkins selling merchandise on his site and then goes into these comments:

Rich also gives the pin Five Stars! and says, “Excellent. Worn it for a couple of months now; four conversations followed I have to order two more.” Another satisfied customer writes, “I love it, but you should really consider offering a Scarlet A necklace.” The next reviewer gives it only four stars, but moving on, Yvonne gives the pin Five Stars! and says, “It looked awesome on my black bag.” Luke gives the pin Five Stars! too and notes, “Great product. I actually turned mine into a pendant by bending the pin and attaching a wire loop.” Then we get back into four star territory: “This is great, but I would much rather have it as a necklace.”

Really??? Is this really worthy of attention for anyone who is trying to assert that Atheists are as bad as Christian Fundamentalists?
Oh wait, here comes the poison. He then goes on to state: "The comment that most interested me was the one from Rich: “Worn it for a couple of months now; four conversations followed.” That really brought back the memories."
Again “Worn it for a couple of months now; four conversations followed.”
The whole sentence is double quoted so I'm not sure if the memories part is from Rich or the author of the piece.

There you have it. Atheists are just as bad as Christian Fundamentalists because one Atheist on a Richard Dawkins site back in 2008 stated “Worn it for a couple of months now; four conversations followed.”

So half way through this article The author finally goes after Dawkins. After he throws out tons of more insults of course. Let's look at the first.

But what Dawkins says he’s most proud of is the part of his web-site called “Convert’s Corner” where, as he told Bill Maher in an in-terview on Maher’s TV show in 2008, “You can go and read all the testimonies of people who have been converted!” Then he said, “When I’m on my deathbed I’ll have a tape recorder switched on because people like me are victims of malicious stories after they’re dead of people saying they had a deathbed conversion when they didn’t.” Maher looked a bit puzzled, so Dawkins explained that he suspects creationists may already be plotting to do this to him and pointed out that “they now claim Darwin had a deathbed conversion.”

Dawkins is correct about this. I have actually seen it in many of his debates. People also claimed Hitchens would have a deathbed conversion. He didn't. I remember myself on a few Creationist sites that they claimed Darwin had a deathbed conversion. So what Dawkins is saying is true. Why is the author even talking about this?

Let's see what happens next.

When Maher asked Dawkins about The God Delusion, Dawkins said little about the book’s content but exclaimed, “It’s sold a million and a half copies!” Then Maher, like an enthusiastic puppy scampering around a big dog, yelped, “And now it’s in paperback, it will be even more available!” Maher paused to take a breath then added, “I’m your biggest fan!” Then Dawkins, slipping into his rock star mode, explained that he has so many fans because “I think people are getting a bit fed up with other people thrusting their imaginary friends down their throats.”

First of all, let's get rid of the quote mining. Maher' s exact words were "Thanks for joining us and I don't have to tell you how big a fan I am" The colorful language and jabs really shows a lot of immaturity with this author also. Dawkins is asked why the success with his book and he comments that Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens books have similar sales and then responds with "“I think people are getting a bit fed up with other people thrusting their imaginary friends down their throats.”
How is that comment in any way shape or form similar to being as bad as Christian Fundamentalists?

I could post some quotes by these Fundamentalists
“The right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example.” -Richard Furman
“Sex education classes in our public schools are promoting incest.” –Jimmy Swaggart
"If you're not a born-again Christian, you're a failure as a human being." -Jerry Falwell
“Nobody has the right to worship on this planet any other God than Jehovah. And therefore the state does not have the responsibility to defend anybody’s pseudo-right to worship an idol.” –Rev. Joseph Morecraft

2 quotes by Ted Hagger
“We don’t have to debate about what we should think about homosexual activity, it’s written in the Bible.”
“A fantasy of mine is to have an orgy with about six young college guys ranging from 18 to 22 in age.”

So you think Richard Dawkins and other Atheists are on par with Christian Fundamentalists?

Dawkins on par with Christian fundamentalists? Maybe not. He merely provides superficial pop culture atheists with the impression of having a persuasive argument. Clearly atheists are every bit as intolerant as anyone else.

Here is an example of dishonesty. CA asserts back in post 404 that "human behaviors of blind dogmatic faith are remarkably the same for both atheists and religious fundamentalists."
I challenged him to provide proof of his assertion back on post 412. After skirting the issue or telling me to read the posts he finally puts up a link. He doesn't highlight any particular part of the link so it means that he agrees with the whole piece. The piece is titled "New Atheists as bad as Christian Fundamentalists" It criticizes Richard Dawkins. So when I make an attempt to argue the piece your first response is "Dawkins on par with Christian fundamentalists? Maybe not."
You are now back-peddling and your original argument is null and void.

As an Atheist I am intolerant. Intolerant to hypocrites, intolerant to bigots, intolerant to those who want to forcibly push their religion on me, intolerant to those who do nothing but berate, insult and attack others.

 

[Tuatara]

That's just it; evidence either exists, or it doesn't. It doesn't require a pure heart to be seen. I don't need a pure heart, or mind, to see the evidence of gravity. I need only drop a ball. I can be as pure as a saint, or as vile as a paedophile, and the evidence will be exactly the same.

Nothing that requires the "right mind-set" to experience is real, nor objective. Guess what? If I take the right drugs I'll hear God's voice. That isn't real, either.

Either God exists, and there is objective evidence to support that claim, or he doesn't, and there isn't.

And if such objective evidence exists, that means, by definition, that it is observable by everyone, period. Full stop. Not just the "pure of heart", but everyone.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Your logic is impeccable except you haven't included in your speculations that for a living being to qualify as God it would have to be incorporeal. Microscopes, telescopes, test tubes and beakers are consequently worthless.

For a human being to accurately perceive that which is incorporeal he would have to purify what is incorporeal in him, the conscious mind.

For everyone to have hold of objective evidence everyone would just have to stop screwing up each others minds.

Its a jungle out there.....Get real.

There's another word for what you are descibing - imagined. Gracvity is "incorporeal" as you put it. There is nothing to see, touch,taste, or smell. Yet, it is possible to observe gravity in action. It is posible to test for the existence of gravity, and to repeat the effects of gravity, and no "purity of spirit" necessary. Either a thing exists, or it doesn't. If it only exists for those "in the right mind-set" then it isn't real; it is the product of one's imagination.

No, gravity is not incorporeal. Gravity is a force directly related and connected to matter in the material universe.

Let me put it this way. If a person wants to understand calculous, they must apply their mind to learn it. If a person does not do what is necessary to learn, they will never understand calculous.

Only those who do, will. Its as simple as that.


In the same way I told you the way to prepare your mind in order to be capable of seeing God.. If you do not take the steps necessary God will remain hidden from you,not because he is not there, but because you have chosen to remain blind.

I see this all the time from theists. It complete BS. Most atheists were at one time religious. Some of them believed in God for many years. So now tell me, especially after you know now this, who has chosen to remain blind?

who has chosen to remain blind?

Apparently many believers and unbelievers alike who continue to argue with each other over what scripture is not about.

So what you are saying is scripture is vague and contradictory.

 

[sealybobo]

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.

Then you must admit there is no such thing as a theist either. Do you try to make the same point to people who claim to be theists? Because they aren't any more sure there is a God than I am there is not.

The opposite of a theist is an atheist. If you aren't a theist and you had to pick one? And I'm not talking about which one you would pick if you thought hell was at stake. I'm talking about hooking you to a lie detector and holding a gun to your head and saying agnostic automatically gets you shot. So you have to be honest, do you think there's a god? You'd say no.

Do I think there's a god? Could be, but so far no actual proof. That's the best answer I can give. Just because today, we have no proof doesn't mean that something doesn't exist.
And tons of theists are 100% convinced that there's an invisible superhero.

I asked if you THINK there is a god. You didn't answer the question which means you aren't being intellectually honest with me. You're being stubborn and won't admit that if hooked up to a lie detector that could 100% read your heart and mind and then I put the gun to your head and you were forced to be honest you would say FINE, I DON'T BELIEVE. And why do you not believe? Because there is zero evidence. So the question is, why are you on the fence about something that has zero evidence?

Because you are a pussy. Think about what you wrote. "Do I think there's a god?" Then you puss out and say "could be", but then immediately admit there is "zero evidence/proof."

So then give me a couple reasons why you are on the fence about this? Why god is just as probable as no god. Explain to us all why you think there's an equal chance a god does exist.

And what other things do you believe without evidence? Gravity existed before we knew it but God's not gravity. Gravity is a scientific thing. God's all in your head.

You probably fall for the watchmaker argument. That makes you uncomfortable that everything created must have a creator. So since you can't wrap your brain around that, you remain willfully ignorant. LOL

And what god are we talking about anyways? Generic creator thing or sent his son God? I'm agnostic about generic god too. But these people are secretly Jesus freaks. I thought Ding was just a theist and I think he may have even said he was a deist one time but yesterday he came out of the closet. He's a jesus freak. And he admitted it's ok for him to lie because he's a jesus freak. He can be a dick too. Isn't Jesus great? Easiest religion to join. You don't have to do SHIT but put 10% in the pot.

Gravity was something that was always there we just didn't know it or understand how to explain it. Please show me how you would attempt to prove god exists like we did gravity. This is a good point you make because gravity isn't a solid. Maybe Gravity is god? It sure is a powerful thing. Man is the universe fascinating or what? The idea that we are being pulled by our sun to go around and around and the entire universe is swirling around too. Absolutely amazing.

 

[sealybobo]

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.

Then you must admit there is no such thing as a theist either. Do you try to make the same point to people who claim to be theists? Because they aren't any more sure there is a God than I am there is not.

The opposite of a theist is an atheist. If you aren't a theist and you had to pick one? And I'm not talking about which one you would pick if you thought hell was at stake. I'm talking about hooking you to a lie detector and holding a gun to your head and saying agnostic automatically gets you shot. So you have to be honest, do you think there's a god? You'd say no.

Do I think there's a god? Could be, but so far no actual proof. That's the best answer I can give. Just because today, we have no proof doesn't mean that something doesn't exist.
And tons of theists are 100% convinced that there's an invisible superhero.

Why could there be? I can explain how/why/when we made it up. You explain to me the reasons you think there "could be". How? Why?

 

[sealybobo]

You haven't actually challenged anything with anything.

Post 414. You made an assertion. I challenged you to provide documentation. You keep skirting it. Now put on your big boy pants and provide me with examples of your assertion. Back up your statement. You keep telling me that I didn't back mine up but my statement is for you to provide evidence of yours. How can I argue something when I have no idea what you are referring to?

Documentation of what? Anecdotal philosophy?
http://www.alternet.org/story/143674/are_the_"new_atheists"_as_bad_as_christian_fundamentalists

I thought you were talking about people here on this forum. I asked you what post and you told me to read.

Let's take a look at you link, shall we. First I see a lot of mudslinging before any evidence has been given

They are as close minded as they seem to be almost pathologically certain of their beliefs

The New Atheist movement is being led by several egomaniac intolerant fundamentalists

men who discredit whatever they're selling by their tawdry proselytizing and commercial opportunism combined with absurdly big egos and a deadly certainty that they and only they are right

egoistical internet-savvy swami posing in hagiographic photos while collecting birthday greetings and good wishes from his deluded (not terribly bright) followers.

I can see why you like him. The insults come fast and furious. Lets look at his argument shall we.
He talks about Richard Dawkins selling merchandise on his site and then goes into these comments:

Rich also gives the pin Five Stars! and says, “Excellent. Worn it for a couple of months now; four conversations followed I have to order two more.” Another satisfied customer writes, “I love it, but you should really consider offering a Scarlet A necklace.” The next reviewer gives it only four stars, but moving on, Yvonne gives the pin Five Stars! and says, “It looked awesome on my black bag.” Luke gives the pin Five Stars! too and notes, “Great product. I actually turned mine into a pendant by bending the pin and attaching a wire loop.” Then we get back into four star territory: “This is great, but I would much rather have it as a necklace.”

Really??? Is this really worthy of attention for anyone who is trying to assert that Atheists are as bad as Christian Fundamentalists?
Oh wait, here comes the poison. He then goes on to state: "The comment that most interested me was the one from Rich: “Worn it for a couple of months now; four conversations followed.” That really brought back the memories."
Again “Worn it for a couple of months now; four conversations followed.”
The whole sentence is double quoted so I'm not sure if the memories part is from Rich or the author of the piece.

There you have it. Atheists are just as bad as Christian Fundamentalists because one Atheist on a Richard Dawkins site back in 2008 stated “Worn it for a couple of months now; four conversations followed.”

So half way through this article The author finally goes after Dawkins. After he throws out tons of more insults of course. Let's look at the first.

But what Dawkins says he’s most proud of is the part of his web-site called “Convert’s Corner” where, as he told Bill Maher in an in-terview on Maher’s TV show in 2008, “You can go and read all the testimonies of people who have been converted!” Then he said, “When I’m on my deathbed I’ll have a tape recorder switched on because people like me are victims of malicious stories after they’re dead of people saying they had a deathbed conversion when they didn’t.” Maher looked a bit puzzled, so Dawkins explained that he suspects creationists may already be plotting to do this to him and pointed out that “they now claim Darwin had a deathbed conversion.”

Dawkins is correct about this. I have actually seen it in many of his debates. People also claimed Hitchens would have a deathbed conversion. He didn't. I remember myself on a few Creationist sites that they claimed Darwin had a deathbed conversion. So what Dawkins is saying is true. Why is the author even talking about this?

Let's see what happens next.

When Maher asked Dawkins about The God Delusion, Dawkins said little about the book’s content but exclaimed, “It’s sold a million and a half copies!” Then Maher, like an enthusiastic puppy scampering around a big dog, yelped, “And now it’s in paperback, it will be even more available!” Maher paused to take a breath then added, “I’m your biggest fan!” Then Dawkins, slipping into his rock star mode, explained that he has so many fans because “I think people are getting a bit fed up with other people thrusting their imaginary friends down their throats.”

First of all, let's get rid of the quote mining. Maher' s exact words were "Thanks for joining us and I don't have to tell you how big a fan I am" The colorful language and jabs really shows a lot of immaturity with this author also. Dawkins is asked why the success with his book and he comments that Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens books have similar sales and then responds with "“I think people are getting a bit fed up with other people thrusting their imaginary friends down their throats.”
How is that comment in any way shape or form similar to being as bad as Christian Fundamentalists?

I could post some quotes by these Fundamentalists
“The right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example.” -Richard Furman
“Sex education classes in our public schools are promoting incest.” –Jimmy Swaggart
"If you're not a born-again Christian, you're a failure as a human being." -Jerry Falwell
“Nobody has the right to worship on this planet any other God than Jehovah. And therefore the state does not have the responsibility to defend anybody’s pseudo-right to worship an idol.” –Rev. Joseph Morecraft

2 quotes by Ted Hagger
“We don’t have to debate about what we should think about homosexual activity, it’s written in the Bible.”
“A fantasy of mine is to have an orgy with about six young college guys ranging from 18 to 22 in age.”

So you think Richard Dawkins and other Atheists are on par with Christian Fundamentalists?

Dawkins on par with Christian fundamentalists? Maybe not. He merely provides superficial pop culture atheists with the impression of having a persuasive argument. Clearly atheists are every bit as intolerant as anyone else.

Here is an example of dishonesty. CA asserts back in post 404 that "human behaviors of blind dogmatic faith are remarkably the same for both atheists and religious fundamentalists."
I challenged him to provide proof of his assertion back on post 412. After skirting the issue or telling me to read the posts he finally puts up a link. He doesn't highlight any particular part of the link so it means that he agrees with the whole piece. The piece is titled "New Atheists as bad as Christian Fundamentalists" It criticizes Richard Dawkins. So when I make an attempt to argue the piece your first response is "Dawkins on par with Christian fundamentalists? Maybe not."
You are now back-peddling and your original argument is null and void.

As an Atheist I am intolerant. Intolerant to hypocrites, intolerant to bigots, intolerant to those who want to forcibly push their religion on me, intolerant to those who do nothing but berate, insult and attack others.

I'm intolerant of ignorance too.

 

[Mudda]

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.

The atheists who claim that god is not possible, or that god doesn't exist are just as deluded. Just because we have no mean now to detect a god doesn't mean that there isn't one. Personally, I'll wait for the actual evidence either way.

Sure:

I like to think that asking is the universe made by intelligent design is a plausible question, it's something that man will likely search for forever when looking at possible origins of this universe and what may or may not be found outside it.
You, on the other hand, seem to have a closed mind about all this. Why is that?

 

[Constructive Anarchy]

You haven't actually challenged anything with anything.

Post 414. You made an assertion. I challenged you to provide documentation. You keep skirting it. Now put on your big boy pants and provide me with examples of your assertion. Back up your statement. You keep telling me that I didn't back mine up but my statement is for you to provide evidence of yours. How can I argue something when I have no idea what you are referring to?

Documentation of what? Anecdotal philosophy?
http://www.alternet.org/story/143674/are_the_"new_atheists"_as_bad_as_christian_fundamentalists

I thought you were talking about people here on this forum. I asked you what post and you told me to read.

Let's take a look at you link, shall we. First I see a lot of mudslinging before any evidence has been given

They are as close minded as they seem to be almost pathologically certain of their beliefs

The New Atheist movement is being led by several egomaniac intolerant fundamentalists

men who discredit whatever they're selling by their tawdry proselytizing and commercial opportunism combined with absurdly big egos and a deadly certainty that they and only they are right

egoistical internet-savvy swami posing in hagiographic photos while collecting birthday greetings and good wishes from his deluded (not terribly bright) followers.

I can see why you like him. The insults come fast and furious. Lets look at his argument shall we.
He talks about Richard Dawkins selling merchandise on his site and then goes into these comments:

Rich also gives the pin Five Stars! and says, “Excellent. Worn it for a couple of months now; four conversations followed I have to order two more.” Another satisfied customer writes, “I love it, but you should really consider offering a Scarlet A necklace.” The next reviewer gives it only four stars, but moving on, Yvonne gives the pin Five Stars! and says, “It looked awesome on my black bag.” Luke gives the pin Five Stars! too and notes, “Great product. I actually turned mine into a pendant by bending the pin and attaching a wire loop.” Then we get back into four star territory: “This is great, but I would much rather have it as a necklace.”

Really??? Is this really worthy of attention for anyone who is trying to assert that Atheists are as bad as Christian Fundamentalists?
Oh wait, here comes the poison. He then goes on to state: "The comment that most interested me was the one from Rich: “Worn it for a couple of months now; four conversations followed.” That really brought back the memories."
Again “Worn it for a couple of months now; four conversations followed.”
The whole sentence is double quoted so I'm not sure if the memories part is from Rich or the author of the piece.

There you have it. Atheists are just as bad as Christian Fundamentalists because one Atheist on a Richard Dawkins site back in 2008 stated “Worn it for a couple of months now; four conversations followed.”

So half way through this article The author finally goes after Dawkins. After he throws out tons of more insults of course. Let's look at the first.

But what Dawkins says he’s most proud of is the part of his web-site called “Convert’s Corner” where, as he told Bill Maher in an in-terview on Maher’s TV show in 2008, “You can go and read all the testimonies of people who have been converted!” Then he said, “When I’m on my deathbed I’ll have a tape recorder switched on because people like me are victims of malicious stories after they’re dead of people saying they had a deathbed conversion when they didn’t.” Maher looked a bit puzzled, so Dawkins explained that he suspects creationists may already be plotting to do this to him and pointed out that “they now claim Darwin had a deathbed conversion.”

Dawkins is correct about this. I have actually seen it in many of his debates. People also claimed Hitchens would have a deathbed conversion. He didn't. I remember myself on a few Creationist sites that they claimed Darwin had a deathbed conversion. So what Dawkins is saying is true. Why is the author even talking about this?

Let's see what happens next.

When Maher asked Dawkins about The God Delusion, Dawkins said little about the book’s content but exclaimed, “It’s sold a million and a half copies!” Then Maher, like an enthusiastic puppy scampering around a big dog, yelped, “And now it’s in paperback, it will be even more available!” Maher paused to take a breath then added, “I’m your biggest fan!” Then Dawkins, slipping into his rock star mode, explained that he has so many fans because “I think people are getting a bit fed up with other people thrusting their imaginary friends down their throats.”

First of all, let's get rid of the quote mining. Maher' s exact words were "Thanks for joining us and I don't have to tell you how big a fan I am" The colorful language and jabs really shows a lot of immaturity with this author also. Dawkins is asked why the success with his book and he comments that Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens books have similar sales and then responds with "“I think people are getting a bit fed up with other people thrusting their imaginary friends down their throats.”
How is that comment in any way shape or form similar to being as bad as Christian Fundamentalists?

I could post some quotes by these Fundamentalists
“The right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example.” -Richard Furman
“Sex education classes in our public schools are promoting incest.” –Jimmy Swaggart
"If you're not a born-again Christian, you're a failure as a human being." -Jerry Falwell
“Nobody has the right to worship on this planet any other God than Jehovah. And therefore the state does not have the responsibility to defend anybody’s pseudo-right to worship an idol.” –Rev. Joseph Morecraft

2 quotes by Ted Hagger
“We don’t have to debate about what we should think about homosexual activity, it’s written in the Bible.”
“A fantasy of mine is to have an orgy with about six young college guys ranging from 18 to 22 in age.”

So you think Richard Dawkins and other Atheists are on par with Christian Fundamentalists?

Dawkins on par with Christian fundamentalists? Maybe not. He merely provides superficial pop culture atheists with the impression of having a persuasive argument. Clearly atheists are every bit as intolerant as anyone else.

Here is an example of dishonesty. CA asserts back in post 404 that "human behaviors of blind dogmatic faith are remarkably the same for both atheists and religious fundamentalists."
I challenged him to provide proof of his assertion back on post 412. After skirting the issue or telling me to read the posts he finally puts up a link. He doesn't highlight any particular part of the link so it means that he agrees with the whole piece. The piece is titled "New Atheists as bad as Christian Fundamentalists" It criticizes Richard Dawkins. So when I make an attempt to argue the piece your first response is "Dawkins on par with Christian fundamentalists? Maybe not."
You are now back-peddling and your original argument is null and void.

As an Atheist I am intolerant. Intolerant to hypocrites, intolerant to bigots, intolerant to those who want to forcibly push their religion on me, intolerant to those who do nothing but berate, insult and attack others.

Sounds just like you refuted nothing.

 

[Constructive Anarchy]

What do you mean? It can't exist if you didn't know about it. Right?

You're the one talking about stupidworld. I thought, based on your posts, you we're telling us all where you're from.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Of course if parallel universes don't exist, and mainstream theoretical physics are bull shit, then there couldn't possibly be anything besides what you see. Someone should let Michio Kaku know about your astounding conclusions.

Not my conclusions.

Suddenly so neutral. I wonder why?

It's your turn to pontificate your illusions

Which illusions are those? Not that it matters because you dummies will fill in the blanks with something.

 

[Constructive Anarchy]

I am an athiest. I simply do not believe in supernatural entities, gods, angels, demons supernatural events or anything of that sort. My attitude is that science can explain everything, eventually.

So then you evidently have "faith" in science. Where is the evolution of thought?

You keep using this word "faith". I think you do not know what it means. Faith: firm belief in something for which there is no proof. See, science doesn't require faith, because it relies on observable evidence. When I go up to the roof of my house, and drop a ball, I don't "have faith" that it will fall to the earth. I simply know that it will, because gravity is an observable phenomenon. Evolution as an observable process. The only "faith" I have in science, I have in the scientists - and that faith is simply this: That they will keep asking questions.

That is the only faith that we ever need in humanity - that we Keep. Asking. Questions. That we never simply accept dictated answers that have no evidence. It is for this reason that I refuse to accept your "God did it" as an answer for anything. Because in order to accept that as an answer, one must first accept that God even exists - and there is yet any objective evidence to support that claim.

Now, you are going to, naturally, respond that I have no evidence that he does not. The problem is that my position requires no "faith". It merely requires me to withhold acceptance of a positive claim ("God exists") until evidence to support that claim is presented. It is your position - There is a God - that requires faith, because it requires you to accept a position for which there is no objective evidence.

Now, you'll notice I keep using that word, "objective", because it matters. There is plenty of "evidence" to the existence of God: "God healed me of my bunions"; "God sent me a job offer"; "The holy spirit filled me with peace". Do you notice what all of these have in common? "Me". They are all personal, anecdotal, unverifiable, and subject to personal interpretation. In other words, they are all useless as proof. For proof to be valid, it must be objective, and verifiable.

For the historic record, here's where mischaracterizations begin. Post # 70. False and misleading assumptions based on conjecture. When did I mention God?

You keep saying " when did I mention God". Isn't he what the thread is about?

Why are you people all so universally stupid? Or are you just purposefully obtuse?

 

[Mudda]

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.

Then you must admit there is no such thing as a theist either. Do you try to make the same point to people who claim to be theists? Because they aren't any more sure there is a God than I am there is not.

The opposite of a theist is an atheist. If you aren't a theist and you had to pick one? And I'm not talking about which one you would pick if you thought hell was at stake. I'm talking about hooking you to a lie detector and holding a gun to your head and saying agnostic automatically gets you shot. So you have to be honest, do you think there's a god? You'd say no.

Do I think there's a god? Could be, but so far no actual proof. That's the best answer I can give. Just because today, we have no proof doesn't mean that something doesn't exist.
And tons of theists are 100% convinced that there's an invisible superhero.

Why could there be? I can explain how/why/when we made it up. You explain to me the reasons you think there "could be". How? Why?

Like I said to Czernobyl "I like to think that asking is the universe made by intelligent design is a plausible question, it's something that man will likely search for forever when looking at possible origins of this universe and what may or may not be found outside it.
You, on the other hand, seem to have a closed mind about all this. Why is that?"