Atheism; An Intellectual Dead End

[ScienceRocks]

It is intellectually a dead end to believe and to make shit up about something that isn't proven over science. Period.

 

[ding]

You're quite right. Absolute atheism is intellectually bankrupt - as is absolute theism.
After all, there is no more evidence to support absolute theism, than there is absolute atheism, now is there.

That is rather the point of rational atheism - that the default position of "There is no God" is the rational position, until such time as objective evidence is presented to make such a position no longer tenable.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

They think their history is factual. They used to take Noah and David and Goliath and talking snakes literally but most of them now understand all those to be allegories.

But they don't take the logical leap that so too are the Jesus stories. No no those are real.

Again, you don't know that. You must be agnostic about that. The reality is that nearly every culture has a tradition of a global flood. There's probably something to it. As for Biblical implications, read the allegorical books allegorically, read the poetic books poetically, read the wisdom books wisely, read the prophetic books prophetically, read the apocalyptic books apocalyptically, read the books of law legally and read the historical books historically, but in the proper context of that day.

Reagan the stupid books stupidly

That's because it is not your faith. Of course you will read it stupidly, that's called confirmation bias.

It was at the time. And,

Are you saying you have to believe what you are about to read regardless of what you are about to read in order to get it? Sorry my brain doesn't work that way. If I start reading something and it doesn't move me that's not my fault.

And I think I was throughout brainwashed before I read the bible. Maybe I was starting to have my doubts before I read it but the book didn't win me back. I'm not gullible or easily brainwashed

I don't care when it was. It's not your faith now. I wouldn't expect you to show it any respect and you just proved that with your idiotic statement. Personally I believe you have the idiotic belief because I don't see how it could be any other way. It's not even close.

 

[ding]

It is intellectually a dead end to believe and to make shit up about something that isn't proven over science. Period.

You mean like love?

 

[ding]

I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me. I have chosen the better portion and it will not be taken away from me. What you intend for evil, He has used for good.

.

I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me. I have chosen the better portion and it will not be taken away from me. What you intend for evil, He has used for good.

I have chosen the better portion ...


truth is not a choice bing maybe you should take another look ... at whatever you chose from. * or just anything different would be an improvement.

Being objective is a choice and you can't see truth without being objective. I chose God, I have no idea what you believe I chose.

.

Being objective is a choice and you can't see truth without being objective. I chose God, I have no idea what you believe I chose.

another who's native language must be from another country than the USA ...

No. I only speak English. He is still using what you intended as evil for good. My good.

Don't bother with these idiots. You'll never get anything from them that even comes anywhere close to being an honest argument. They are false and stupid in just about equal proportions.

No. They are just a bit stubborn is all.

 

[ding]

It is called faith and it exists for good reason.

Because you can't prove anything.

Sure I can. I've proven it to myself.

.

Sure I can. I've proven it to myself.

by reading an abridged 4th century document with an appealing appetizer, how shocking. bought any real estate lately.

Why don't you tell us about your beliefs in God? Can you do that? Is it even possible for you to make a positive statement about your beliefs?

 

[ding]

Comparing belief in a higher power to belief in santa clause is a logical fallacy strawman. Since the beginning of time man has debated the existence of a higher power. Don't kid yourself. The argument about the existence of God is as old as man himself. Nothing new here. The persistence of the belief and the common themes of religion in general are evidence in and of themselves that faith in a higher power is more than just a santa clause story.

Having faith in something means to have complete trust in it. I don't put complete trust into something unless I have a good reason for doing so.

You're equating two different meanings of the word "faith:

"Faith" -- belief without evidence. Religious faith. Theists have that type.

"Faith" -- belief with evidence. Faith that the sun with rise tomorrow. Atheists have that type.

Those two types of faith rely on completely different definitions, so declaring them to be the same is an equivocation fallacy, and thus invalid.

No. I only have one definition.

Faith = complete trust in something

And other people don't share your bad definitions. Hence, it's senseless for you to declare what others really believe based only on your own bad use of language.

I declare what I believe. I don't declare anything for anyone else. You couldn't even direct your replies to the quote you were supposedly rebutting. So don't tell me about bad use of language.

 

[Mudda]

You are an amazingly stupid little person. When will dummies like you understand that whatever I believe has no relevance to the argument? When will people like you stop being so fucking dim witted?

Constructive Douchebag is too afraid to say that he believes in invisible superheroes.

And at least I am open and honest enough to admit technically you are right. No one has ever met God so no one knows. And no one knows if anyone has ever met God. Maybe con douche has met God. But if you ask me if I believe con douche met God the answer is no. I'm not agnostic about that. Are you?

You better say yes because you can't know for sure, right?

Anything you can't falsify or disprove you are agnostic about. Like my invisible dragon. You are on the fence on her right?

Yes, God is taken on faith, but so is not believing in God. Not believing in God is taken on faith too. Having faith in something means to have complete trust in it. I don't put complete trust into something unless I have a good reason for doing so.

Stick with faith because you can't prove anything.
Faith=Wishful thinking

That's funny because I believe I can do all things through Jesus Christ who strengthens me.

That's called the placebo effect. Now you know.

 

[ding]

Constructive Douchebag is too afraid to say that he believes in invisible superheroes.

And at least I am open and honest enough to admit technically you are right. No one has ever met God so no one knows. And no one knows if anyone has ever met God. Maybe con douche has met God. But if you ask me if I believe con douche met God the answer is no. I'm not agnostic about that. Are you?

You better say yes because you can't know for sure, right?

Anything you can't falsify or disprove you are agnostic about. Like my invisible dragon. You are on the fence on her right?

Yes, God is taken on faith, but so is not believing in God. Not believing in God is taken on faith too. Having faith in something means to have complete trust in it. I don't put complete trust into something unless I have a good reason for doing so.

Stick with faith because you can't prove anything.
Faith=Wishful thinking

That's funny because I believe I can do all things through Jesus Christ who strengthens me.

That's called the placebo effect. Now you know.

That hasn't been my observations.

 

[ding]

I look forward to the day when science can answer this question: What happened on the Tuesday before the big bang?

.

I look forward to the day when science can answer this question: What happened on the Tuesday before the big bang?

how would that change your perception, is it necessary that religion exist where answers are perceived to not exist ...

and which religion would be known to answer the unanswered.

There are enough core similarities between them it doesn't matter which one is practiced. The benefits of believing in a higher power than man will be the same.

.
and which religion would be known to answer the unanswered.

There are enough core similarities between them it doesn't matter which one is practiced.

including a 4th century political agenda disguised as a religion ... you are one sick puppy.

.

Notice how none of you fucking dummies can ever make an argument extolling the virtues of atheism. The entirety of your shallow dead end pseudo intellectualism evidently depends completely on countering the idea of religious beliefs. And that's it, nothing more. Your self identified philosophy has no intrinsic value of it's own. Your so called arguments don't stand independently. You only have a negative argument with nothing to affirm or substantiate your view.

I don't think we should be required to make an argument for the virtures of atheism. Maybe it isn't virtuous?

goodness, morality, integrity, dignity, rectitude, honor, decency, respectability, worthiness, purity;
principles, ethics


Atheism doesn't have to be good. It's just not believing in god.

Atheism has nothing to do with my morality. Neither does god other than maybe when I was a kid I was scared into being nice instead of naughty because some wacked out Christians told me this crazy story how if I believe them then I'll be a god after I die.

I just don't buy it. I wanted to but belief isn't something you do because you want to. I believe the Lions are going to win a Superbowl in my lifetime but that doesn't make it true.

And I have honor, show decency, respect, principles, ethics...all without god

I've been trying to tell you that you were born with the innate ability to know right from wrong, but you keep arguing that you didn't. Why do you keep rejecting science. And while we are on that subject, your comment that "you were scared into being nice," that to has a scientific basis too. Any way they are both totally consistent with the Bible.

 

[Czernobog]

There is no more objective evidence of your mythical god than there is of your three-headed unicorn.You have repeatedly been offered to present the objective evidence supporting the existence of God. The one time you tried, you first required that God be presumed to exist, in order for the evidence to fit your hypothesis. That isn't evidence, that's confirmation bias. After that, you just refused to even try.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

There was no evidence of relativity until the eclipse but it was still believed.

Wrong. Relativity was presented as a hypothesis (and still is only theory, incidentally), and then objectively tested that hypothesis sufficiently that it became a working theory. You present divinity as a fact, and then attempt to arrange observations to fit your presumption.

In short you actively engage in confirmation bias, and call it "proof".

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Call it whatever you want the point stands. First comes observation. Then comes the idea and then comes the test. That's how it works.

That's not how it works. Your "hypothesis" (and I use that term losely" is that "God exists". Okay. Now. How do you test that hypothesis? And you cannot use the universe as your "evidence". Because that presumes that your hypotheitical God created the universe. Unfortunately, you have not even tested, and proven, with objective evidence, that your hypothetical God even exists. Berfore you can presume thatt this hyptheitcal God created the universe, you must first prove that it even exists. So? Go. Demonstrate for us your "test' for the existence of God.

No. I made observations before I made a hypothesis. You don't think Einstein made any observations? For starters Einstein observed that it was impossible for Newtonian mechanics and Maxwell's equations to both be right. I have observed that we live in a self referential universe which most likely did have a beginning. Both of these conditions are supported by the physical laws of science. Any problems so far?

Yes. There is absolutely nothing in the physical laws of the universe - particularly in light of quantum physics - that predicates a begining of the universe. It is just as likely that there was no begining as it is that there was. Next?

 

[ding]

There was no evidence of relativity until the eclipse but it was still believed.

Wrong. Relativity was presented as a hypothesis (and still is only theory, incidentally), and then objectively tested that hypothesis sufficiently that it became a working theory. You present divinity as a fact, and then attempt to arrange observations to fit your presumption.

In short you actively engage in confirmation bias, and call it "proof".

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Call it whatever you want the point stands. First comes observation. Then comes the idea and then comes the test. That's how it works.

That's not how it works. Your "hypothesis" (and I use that term losely" is that "God exists". Okay. Now. How do you test that hypothesis? And you cannot use the universe as your "evidence". Because that presumes that your hypotheitical God created the universe. Unfortunately, you have not even tested, and proven, with objective evidence, that your hypothetical God even exists. Berfore you can presume thatt this hyptheitcal God created the universe, you must first prove that it even exists. So? Go. Demonstrate for us your "test' for the existence of God.

No. I made observations before I made a hypothesis. You don't think Einstein made any observations? For starters Einstein observed that it was impossible for Newtonian mechanics and Maxwell's equations to both be right. I have observed that we live in a self referential universe which most likely did have a beginning. Both of these conditions are supported by the physical laws of science. Any problems so far?

Yes. There is absolutely nothing in the physical laws of the universe - particularly in light of quantum physics - that predicates a begining of the universe. It is just as likely that there was no begining as it is that there was. Next?

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does.

 

[BreezeWood]

It is called faith and it exists for good reason.

Because you can't prove anything.

Sure I can. I've proven it to myself.

.

Sure I can. I've proven it to myself.

by reading an abridged 4th century document with an appealing appetizer, how shocking. bought any real estate lately.

Why don't you tell us about your beliefs in God? Can you do that? Is it even possible for you to make a positive statement about your beliefs?

.

Why don't you tell us about your beliefs in God? Can you do that? Is it even possible for you to make a positive statement about your beliefs?

"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me".

I've complied in this thread, the spoken religion of the Almighty it's your turn about your 4th century agenda disguised as a religion you call chritianity.

your "religion" condemns all those that chose or have not read your book while displaying no etchings or physical properties from the time of the events for verification of its veracity and which only exists as an abbreviated document from the 4th century.

The Bible nailed the ...

you and the OP are nothing but stool pigeons made fools of by 4th century charlatans.

 

[ding]

It is called faith and it exists for good reason.

Because you can't prove anything.

Sure I can. I've proven it to myself.

.

Sure I can. I've proven it to myself.

by reading an abridged 4th century document with an appealing appetizer, how shocking. bought any real estate lately.

Why don't you tell us about your beliefs in God? Can you do that? Is it even possible for you to make a positive statement about your beliefs?

.

Why don't you tell us about your beliefs in God? Can you do that? Is it even possible for you to make a positive statement about your beliefs?

"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me".

I've complied in this thread, the spoken religion of the Almighty it's your turn about your 4th century agenda disguised as a religion you call chritianity.

your "religion" condemns all those that chose or have not read your book while displaying no etchings or physical properties from the time of the events for verification of its veracity and which only exists as an abbreviated document from the 4th century.

The Bible nailed the ...

you and the OP are nothing but stool pigeons made fools of by 4th century charlatans.

Let me know when you are ready to praise God's name.

 

[BreezeWood]

Because you can't prove anything.

Sure I can. I've proven it to myself.

.

Sure I can. I've proven it to myself.

by reading an abridged 4th century document with an appealing appetizer, how shocking. bought any real estate lately.

Why don't you tell us about your beliefs in God? Can you do that? Is it even possible for you to make a positive statement about your beliefs?

.

Why don't you tell us about your beliefs in God? Can you do that? Is it even possible for you to make a positive statement about your beliefs?

"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me".

I've complied in this thread, the spoken religion of the Almighty it's your turn about your 4th century agenda disguised as a religion you call chritianity.

your "religion" condemns all those that chose or have not read your book while displaying no etchings or physical properties from the time of the events for verification of its veracity and which only exists as an abbreviated document from the 4th century.

The Bible nailed the ...

you and the OP are nothing but stool pigeons made fools of by 4th century charlatans.

Let me know when you are ready to praise God's name.

.

Let me know when you are ready to praise God's name.

are you scared to read posts about your 4th century abridged "religion" ... the post invokes the Almighty, you and the OP need be afraid of.

 

[ding]

Sure I can. I've proven it to myself.

.

Sure I can. I've proven it to myself.

by reading an abridged 4th century document with an appealing appetizer, how shocking. bought any real estate lately.

Why don't you tell us about your beliefs in God? Can you do that? Is it even possible for you to make a positive statement about your beliefs?

.

Why don't you tell us about your beliefs in God? Can you do that? Is it even possible for you to make a positive statement about your beliefs?

"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me".

I've complied in this thread, the spoken religion of the Almighty it's your turn about your 4th century agenda disguised as a religion you call chritianity.

your "religion" condemns all those that chose or have not read your book while displaying no etchings or physical properties from the time of the events for verification of its veracity and which only exists as an abbreviated document from the 4th century.

The Bible nailed the ...

you and the OP are nothing but stool pigeons made fools of by 4th century charlatans.

Let me know when you are ready to praise God's name.

.

Let me know when you are ready to praise God's name.

are you scared to read posts about your 4th century abridged "religion" ... the post invokes the Almighty, you and the OP need be afraid of.

What you intended for evil, He has used for good.

 

[Czernobog]

The Bible nailed the Great Migration

Really? Please note the portion of the Bible that predicted predicted an event that only happened a hundred years ago.

The Bible nailed the great flood

Except there was no "great flood". And even if there was - there wasn't - the Biblical "account" was categorically impossible:

The account of genesis was recorded in the symbols of the first written language 4500 years ago

Yeah...I read that blathering thread, the first time you posted the link. Couple of problems. First, I notice that no where in your thread did you credit a source for your little slides. Second, the thrust of your argument is that the Chinese recorded that they "migrated" from "somewhere else". Except that Homo Sapien fossils have been discovered in China that date back to 1.6 Million years ago. That kinda contradicts your "The Chinese migrated to China 4,000 years ago" claim, don't ya think?

The Bible nailed that there was a beginning.

Which is just as likely that the Bible got it wrong, again

The Bible nailed evolution.

No it didn't. Since evolution has been proven accurate time after time, there are Biblical apologists who want to try to reinterpret Genesis so that it was referring to evolution. However, that has never been the understanding of the "Origin Story" of the Bible. And it is still not a universally accepted interpretation, even among Christians. Just ask Ken Ham.

The Bible nailed DNA.

No it didn't.

The Bible nailed that we came from dust.

Except we didn't, unless you are referring to the fact that, at a subatomic level, we are all made of the same elements as everything, including dirt. However, that is absolutely not the way in which the "Creation of man" story was written. Now, you can answer that the story was just allegorical, but then that removes your "Man is dust is factually accurate" argument. Either the Bibilcal account of how man came to be is factual, or it is allegorical. To try to claim both is just twisting yourself into logical pretzels in order to make excuses for the Bible.

The Bible nailed the Nature of Man.

Not only is that a matter of opinion, I really rather hope that you are wrong. Unlike you, obviously, I do not believe that man is inherently evil, and incapable of doing good.

The Bible nailed the morality progression.

Opinion.

The Bible nails an internal locus of control.

No it didn't.

The Bible nails that the Spirit of God is within us all.

Opinion.

The Bible nails the saeculum cycle.

REALLY?!?!@? Refresh my memoty? How long did the Bible claim Adam lived? Methuselah? Noah? Shall I go on?

The Bible nails successful behaviors.

Opinion. And a bad one at that/ Really? If you rape a woman, pay her father, and she gets to become your wife is a successful behaviour?!?! Really??? Stoning disobedinet children to death is a successful behaviour? Really??? Either you have a very strange view of "successful behaviour", or you are incorrect.

The Bible nails failed behaviors

Opinion..

 

[Czernobog]

Wrong. Relativity was presented as a hypothesis (and still is only theory, incidentally), and then objectively tested that hypothesis sufficiently that it became a working theory. You present divinity as a fact, and then attempt to arrange observations to fit your presumption.

In short you actively engage in confirmation bias, and call it "proof".

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Call it whatever you want the point stands. First comes observation. Then comes the idea and then comes the test. That's how it works.

That's not how it works. Your "hypothesis" (and I use that term losely" is that "God exists". Okay. Now. How do you test that hypothesis? And you cannot use the universe as your "evidence". Because that presumes that your hypotheitical God created the universe. Unfortunately, you have not even tested, and proven, with objective evidence, that your hypothetical God even exists. Berfore you can presume thatt this hyptheitcal God created the universe, you must first prove that it even exists. So? Go. Demonstrate for us your "test' for the existence of God.

No. I made observations before I made a hypothesis. You don't think Einstein made any observations? For starters Einstein observed that it was impossible for Newtonian mechanics and Maxwell's equations to both be right. I have observed that we live in a self referential universe which most likely did have a beginning. Both of these conditions are supported by the physical laws of science. Any problems so far?

Yes. There is absolutely nothing in the physical laws of the universe - particularly in light of quantum physics - that predicates a begining of the universe. It is just as likely that there was no begining as it is that there was. Next?

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does.

No. It doesn't. You are misapplying the law in light of quantum equations.

 

[ding]

Call it whatever you want the point stands. First comes observation. Then comes the idea and then comes the test. That's how it works.

That's not how it works. Your "hypothesis" (and I use that term losely" is that "God exists". Okay. Now. How do you test that hypothesis? And you cannot use the universe as your "evidence". Because that presumes that your hypotheitical God created the universe. Unfortunately, you have not even tested, and proven, with objective evidence, that your hypothetical God even exists. Berfore you can presume thatt this hyptheitcal God created the universe, you must first prove that it even exists. So? Go. Demonstrate for us your "test' for the existence of God.

No. I made observations before I made a hypothesis. You don't think Einstein made any observations? For starters Einstein observed that it was impossible for Newtonian mechanics and Maxwell's equations to both be right. I have observed that we live in a self referential universe which most likely did have a beginning. Both of these conditions are supported by the physical laws of science. Any problems so far?

Yes. There is absolutely nothing in the physical laws of the universe - particularly in light of quantum physics - that predicates a begining of the universe. It is just as likely that there was no begining as it is that there was. Next?

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does.

No. It doesn't. You are misapplying the law in light of quantum equations.

Do you not know that for every energy to mass transfer and mass to energy transfer that there is a reduction in the usable energy of the system?

 

[ding]

The Bible nailed the Great Migration

Really? Please note the portion of the Bible that predicted predicted an event that only happened a hundred years ago.

The Bible nailed the great flood

Except there was no "great flood". And even if there was - there wasn't - the Biblical "account" was categorically impossible:

The account of genesis was recorded in the symbols of the first written language 4500 years ago

Yeah...I read that blathering thread, the first time you posted the link. Couple of problems. First, I notice that no where in your thread did you credit a source for your little slides. Second, the thrust of your argument is that the Chinese recorded that they "migrated" from "somewhere else". Except that Homo Sapien fossils have been discovered in China that date back to 1.6 Million years ago. That kinda contradicts your "The Chinese migrated to China 4,000 years ago" claim, don't ya think?

The Bible nailed that there was a beginning.

Which is just as likely that the Bible got it wrong, again

The Bible nailed evolution.

No it didn't. Since evolution has been proven accurate time after time, there are Biblical apologists who want to try to reinterpret Genesis so that it was referring to evolution. However, that has never been the understanding of the "Origin Story" of the Bible. And it is still not a universally accepted interpretation, even among Christians. Just ask Ken Ham.

The Bible nailed DNA.

No it didn't.

The Bible nailed that we came from dust.

Except we didn't, unless you are referring to the fact that, at a subatomic level, we are all made of the same elements as everything, including dirt. However, that is absolutely not the way in which the "Creation of man" story was written. Now, you can answer that the story was just allegorical, but then that removes your "Man is dust is factually accurate" argument. Either the Bibilcal account of how man came to be is factual, or it is allegorical. To try to claim both is just twisting yourself into logical pretzels in order to make excuses for the Bible.

The Bible nailed the Nature of Man.

Not only is that a matter of opinion, I really rather hope that you are wrong. Unlike you, obviously, I do not believe that man is inherently evil, and incapable of doing good.

The Bible nailed the morality progression.

Opinion.

The Bible nails an internal locus of control.

No it didn't.

The Bible nails that the Spirit of God is within us all.

Opinion.

The Bible nails the saeculum cycle.

REALLY?!?!@? Refresh my memoty? How long did the Bible claim Adam lived? Methuselah? Noah? Shall I go on?

The Bible nails successful behaviors.

Opinion. And a bad one at that/ Really? If you rape a woman, pay her father, and she gets to become your wife is a successful behaviour?!?! Really??? Stoning disobedinet children to death is a successful behaviour? Really??? Either you have a very strange view of "successful behaviour", or you are incorrect.

The Bible nails failed behaviors

Opinion..

That was entirely predictable. It seems that you believe you are the judge of the world of evidence and everything, lol. God help us if you ever become a dictator, lol. You're like a nazi.

Now tell me what three headed unicorn with lasers coming out its butt has got as a justification to be taken seriously? Your problem is that you don't take it seriously. You have got it in your head that you can't be wrong about anything. I don't have a problem with your non-belief. I have a problem with your attitude and behavior towards my belief.

 

[Czernobog]

That's not how it works. Your "hypothesis" (and I use that term losely" is that "God exists". Okay. Now. How do you test that hypothesis? And you cannot use the universe as your "evidence". Because that presumes that your hypotheitical God created the universe. Unfortunately, you have not even tested, and proven, with objective evidence, that your hypothetical God even exists. Berfore you can presume thatt this hyptheitcal God created the universe, you must first prove that it even exists. So? Go. Demonstrate for us your "test' for the existence of God.

No. I made observations before I made a hypothesis. You don't think Einstein made any observations? For starters Einstein observed that it was impossible for Newtonian mechanics and Maxwell's equations to both be right. I have observed that we live in a self referential universe which most likely did have a beginning. Both of these conditions are supported by the physical laws of science. Any problems so far?

Yes. There is absolutely nothing in the physical laws of the universe - particularly in light of quantum physics - that predicates a begining of the universe. It is just as likely that there was no begining as it is that there was. Next?

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does.

No. It doesn't. You are misapplying the law in light of quantum equations.

Do you not know that for every energy to mass transfer and mass to energy transfer that there is a reduction in the usable energy of the system?

Are you not familiar with gravitons? Are you not aware that, because they are massless, when they are converted to energy, there is no loss of mass? Like I said, quantum physics.