Atheism; An Intellectual Dead End

[Czernobog]

First of all you are a militant atheist.

I don't know that this is true, but you are free to think so.

You seek out believers to mock.

At best, you are mistaken. At worst, that is a lie.

You do argue like a woman.

That's an ad hominem, and not even worthy of response.

You took a statement about the 2nd Amendment and turned that into a threat.

Considering that the only thing the 2nd amendment deals with is guns, yeah, it was a threat. You were making it clear that you will use gun violence to get your way, if the courts do not bow to your desire to indoctrinate, and mentally abuse children.

That's arguing like a woman.

Again with the ad hominem.

Give me a break.

No, I don't think I will give you a break. That is what you are counting on. You have spent your whole life repeating the same irrational arguments until anyone who disagrees with you just give up, so you havbe developped this irrational belief that, if you repeat your bullshit enough times, you will wear your opposition down to capitulation. So, no. I will not give you a break. You will either go away unsatisfied, or go away after admitting that you know your arguments are irrational, but you just don't care. But, either way, you will go away. I will not "give you a break".

Go find some other believer to mock because I'm going to punch back.

Punch away. You have yet to land a blow.

Or maybe that is what you are looking for. Is that it?

I told you what I'm looking for, and you called me a liar.

You seek to subordinate religion. You troll religious threads for the express purpose of mocking believers. You condemn respect for people who believe in God. That is a militant atheist. If you don't know it is true if you are one, then I question your intelligence, honesty or both.

Well, you're free to question anything you like.

You are acting like a woman again. No, I did not make it clear that I would use gun violence to get my way. I made a promise that I would use the 2nd Amendment to protect my 1st Amendment.

A 1st Amendment that is not in jeopardy, but that you repeatedly support denying to anyone who is not a religionist, and then alludedc to the second amendment as a tool to allow you to keep denying those 1st amendment rights to others. So, yes, it was gun violence that you threatened. And "acting like a woman" isn't botheri g me, in case you didn't notice. It is just further evidence of how irrational, and illogical you are.

My arguments are not irrational. You are in denial. You were so busy trying to keep evidence out that you failed to realize that I made my case on every point and you cannot dispute one of them. So, I am at a loss to understand why you don't realize this. I can only assume that is either because of your intelligence, honesty or both.

The only one in denial is you. Not only can I dispute allof your points, I did dispute them, quite effectively. You simply keep making the same points, even after they have been expoosed as irrational. That is your problem, not mine.

The universe had a beginning. What started it is beyond science. What happened after it can be studied. Matter evolved from subatomic particles into beings that know and create. The universe became self aware. The potential for this existed at the beginning. It occurred as a result of the laws of nature. Those laws of nature came into existence when space and time were created. Intelligence is the pinnacle of the evolution of matter. It is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence. The 1st Cause is required. The attribute of the first cause must be eternal. God is just as good as an answer to the first cause as anything else. These are not irrational beliefs. These are rational beliefs.

This is my point about you being in denial. It has been demonstrated, repeatedly, that the universe was not required to have a beginning, and that there is a perfectly sound theory avialable that completely dismantles your "The universe had a beginning" claim. There is no evidence that anything "started" the universe. Matter does not evolve; that is an incorrect use of that word. Matter does not have intelligence. The universe is not even intelligent, let alone self-aware. The very concept of a "1st Cause" requires the use of the logical fallacy of "special pleading" in order to work. Claiming that the "first cause is eternal" is special pleading. Since no other thing in the universe is eternal, you are arguing that this mythical "first cause" is "special". That is a textbook case of special pleading logical fallacy. Any argument that requires the use of a logical fallacy in order to make it work is irrational, and can be ignored.

A number of those beliefs, as has been demonstrated repeatedly, are irrational, leading to your irrational belief in a God.

As I have said, repeatedly, I don't care if you want to believe in your mythnical God; just quit trying to pretend that it can be rationally defended, and quit trying to use the government to legitemise your irrational beliefs, and our public school systems to indoctrinate our children into your irrational religion.

 

[BreezeWood]

.
only 4th century christianity, what it was before then and up to that time was entirely different than what they and you have made it - I have told you before, the religion of the Almighty - The Triumph of Good vs Evil is the true religion of antiquity. your sideshow is a fallacy.

I don't live in the 4th century. Are you a humanist?

.

you quote their bible, you are a 4th century christian, a fraud.

So what Bible do you quote?

.

So what Bible do you quote?

the spoken religion of the Almighty, the same source as your 4th century forged book

And where has it been recorded. What book do you read that isn't corrupt or deluded?

.

And where has it been recorded. What book do you read that isn't corrupt or deluded?

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

the above is a 4th century forgery used to instill fear - there are no etchings in stone or records from the time of the events in antiquity for any of the proclamations in your book.


Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani


the above is the spoken religion and the epitaph your book knowingly disguises. a commemoration lost to future generations in pursuit of the Triumph of Good vs Evil - you represent a hollow, dead end of misery and deciet ...

bing the inquisitor

 

[ding]

Which of my beliefs are irrational? That the universe had a beginning?

Yes. When you hold dogmatically to the position that the universe must have had a beginning, that is irrational, particularly when you have been presented, repeatedly, with a perfectly sound their of the origin of the universe that required no such beginning point.

That is because every single model has the universe in a hot dense state and expanding and cooling. Every single one. The cyclic models - all but one - violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, have major flaws and do not work. The lone exception of the cyclic models is not really a cyclic model as it has increasing time between cycles such that it to had a beginning. So no matter how you slice the pie, you can't help but getting back to an early universe which is hot and dense and then expands and cools. You cannot get around that the universe had a beginning and requires a first cause of which that attribute must be something that is eternal.

So it seems that it is not my belief that the universe had a beginning which is irrational. It is because I don't agree with you that I am irrational. Can you tell me how my belief that the universe had a beginning is irrational? I'll wait. You can't do it. You lose.

That what started it is beyond science?

Yes. That is irrational. It presumes that an outside force started the universe, like one jump starts a car, with absolutely no evidence. Any belief for which there is no rational evidence is, by definition, irrational.

First of all it is not irrational to state that what started it is beyond science. Leon Lederman, American experimental physicist and Nobel Laureate, states, "In the very beginning, there was a void, a curious form of vacuum, a nothingness containing no space, no time, no matter, no light, no sound. Yet the laws of in and this curious vacuum held potential. A story logically begins at the beginning, but this story is about the universe and unfortunately there are no data for the very beginnings--none, zero. We don't know anything about the universe until it reaches the mature age of a billion of a trillionth of a second. That is, some very short time after creation in the big bang. When you read or hear anything about the birth of the universe, someone is making it up--we are in the realm of philosophy.

So clearly if an expert in experimental physics, a Nobel Laureate no less, believes that what happened before the big bang is unknowable by science and is in the realm of philosophy, it is not irrational to believe that what started it is beyond science, now is it? Better yet, you tell me, Einstein, how can science know what happened a billion of a trillionth of a second before space and time were created when all the equations yield infinities? I'll wait.

Secondly, it does not presumes that an outside force started the universe. It merely states that what happened a billion of a trillionth of a second before space and time were created is unknowable. Therefore, would you care to try again to explain how stating "that what started it is beyond science" is irrational? You can't. Because it is not. You lose again.

That what happened after it can be studied?

No. That's not irrational.

Thank you. Neither were the others, as I have just proved.

That the universe became self aware?

Yes, that is quite irrational. "The Universe" is an vast collection inanimate objects. It is not alive. It has no consciousness. It cannot become "self-aware"

The matter and energy that make up who we are right now, literally existed when space and time were created. You and I are quite literally a part of the universe. We are having a discussion about the universe of which we are a part of. The universe is quite literally discussing itself. Do you need for me to explain to you the Conservation of Mass and Energy? Do you need for me to explain the evolution of matter from inception to now? Because based upon these scientific princples, the universe has become self aware. How is it that a man as intelligent as you are was not aware that the universe has become self aware through beings which know and create which are products of the evolution of the universe?



Carl Sagan — 'We are the local embodiment of a Cosmos grown to self-awareness.

You lose again.

That intelligence is the pinnacle of the evolution of matter?

That is not only irrational, but scientifically unsound. Matter neither evolves, nor has consciousness, let alone intelligence. Does a rock have intelligence? Does a grain of sand have intelligence? No. To suggest that matter has intelligence is the pinnacle of irrational thinking.

Of course matter evolved. Our universe started as a hot dense sphere of nearly equal amounts of matter and antimatter. If it did not evolve we would still be there. The initial evolutionary phase of matter is called cosmic evolution where subatomic particles rapidly formed hydrogen and helium. This is evolution of matter from a less mature state to a more mature state; from a less advanced state to a more advanced state. The next phase of evolution of matter was stellar evolution. Where stellar structures were created from clouds of hydrogen and helium gas. This is evolution of matter from a less mature state to a more mature state. The next phase of evolution of matter was chemical evolution. Where supernovas created all the chemical elements and compounds in the universe. This is evolution of matter from a less mature state to a more mature state; from a less advanced state to a more advanced state. The next phase in evolution of matter is life which began as single cells and evolved into all life that we know of today. Eventually matter evolved until beings that know and create arose, thus the universe became self aware of itself through us. Tell what I have gotten wrong here? Tell me what was irrational? Is the truth offensive to your sensibilities?

Can you name anything that was created by the universe and the laws of nature that is more complex than intelligence? I can't because there isn't. Can you name anything that was created by the universe and the laws of nature that required more steps in it's evolution from that hot dense state before expansion? I can't because there isn't. So tell me, how is it irrational to say that intelligence is the pinnacle of the evolution of matter if you can't tell me one thing that is more complex or took more steps in arriving at? Because I would say you are irrational if you can't and still believe that intelligence is not the pinnacle of the evolution of matter. You lose again.

That a 1st Cause is required?

Yes. That is irrational. First, you can see my point to your first irrational claim. Second, without resorting to special pleading (a logical fallacy) every cause requires a preceding cause. When a belief requires a logical fallacy to make it work, it is, by definition, illogical, and therefore, irrational.

So, yes. You hold to a plethora of irrational beliefs.

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics precludes an infinite universe. It is impossible for the process to be infinitely cyclical. It requires a beginning. Therefore a first cause is required which is not subject to the limitation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Hence, something which is eternal and not subject to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. What is irrational is your belief that the universe can be infinite. It can't. Eventually there would be no usable energy left in the cyclical universe. What is also irrational is that your belief that there does not need to be a first cause for a universe that did have a beginning. And finally, what is irrational is your explanation which was devoid of scientific principles of our physical laws that govern our universe. You lose again.

 

[Mudda]

Czernobyl is a deluded atheist. Same intelligence level as dingbat.

Since you declare agnosticism more logical, I think we can debate that. I understand that you think we, who declare ourselves atheist, are tossing the baby out with the bathwater. Just because none of the thousands of god concepts currently in our culture(s) can be considered reasonable doesn't mean that a reasonable concept of god can't exist. Just because none of the gods invented thus far are real doesn't mean that there isn't really a god.

If that's a fair (grossly simplified, though it must be) assessment, then I counter with the assertion that atheism is more logical, because it assumes the least of all the potential positions. Humans have a 'cause' fetish that is understandable when one understands our brains and evolution. Atheism is the most logical position in light of a proper understanding of the natural world and universe. As I understand nature, there's nothing for a god to do.

It is logical to assume a causative agent when considering the interactions our brains were 'designed' to comprehend (the social ones), but that mode of thinking does not apply universally. It would be most illogical to assume that it should.

Atheism makes an unproven claim in such a way that it excludes you potentially being wrong, agnosticism doesn't exclude any option, because it doesn't claim to know a certainty when it doesn't. Making agnosticism the only logical position.

That is just as interesting as it was the first 89 times you told me that. You are not agnostic.

I'm arguing against an atheist, isn't that what you claimed I didn't do and therefore wasn't agnostic?

Loser. Again.

No. If you were arguing against the atheists you would be making my argument and concluding that it was not knowable either way. You are quibbling over the philosophy of belief system not the existence of God which is the core of the philosophies. You can't bring yourself to argue the other side of existence because you don't believe it. Not that you don't know it. You literally do not believe it and that is why you are an atheist.

Why would I argue your side, you have no proof either? And you're totally unclear of the concept of agnosticism, I don't believe both sides equally, I reject both sides equally for lack of real proof.

 

[Mudda]

I think CZERNOBOG is.

Czernobyl is a deluded atheist. Same intelligence level as dingbat.

Since you declare agnosticism more logical, I think we can debate that. I understand that you think we, who declare ourselves atheist, are tossing the baby out with the bathwater. Just because none of the thousands of god concepts currently in our culture(s) can be considered reasonable doesn't mean that a reasonable concept of god can't exist. Just because none of the gods invented thus far are real doesn't mean that there isn't really a god.

If that's a fair (grossly simplified, though it must be) assessment, then I counter with the assertion that atheism is more logical, because it assumes the least of all the potential positions. Humans have a 'cause' fetish that is understandable when one understands our brains and evolution. Atheism is the most logical position in light of a proper understanding of the natural world and universe. As I understand nature, there's nothing for a god to do.

It is logical to assume a causative agent when considering the interactions our brains were 'designed' to comprehend (the social ones), but that mode of thinking does not apply universally. It would be most illogical to assume that it should.

Atheism makes an unproven claim in such a way that it excludes you potentially being wrong, agnosticism doesn't exclude any option, because it doesn't claim to know a certainty when it doesn't. Making agnosticism the only logical position.

That is just as interesting as it was the first 89 times you told me that. You are not agnostic.

Mudda is an agnostic atheist but he doesn't know it.

You just think that because I'm the only rational person here and you want a piece of that. Um... no.

 

[sealybobo]

Czernobyl is a deluded atheist. Same intelligence level as dingbat.

Since you declare agnosticism more logical, I think we can debate that. I understand that you think we, who declare ourselves atheist, are tossing the baby out with the bathwater. Just because none of the thousands of god concepts currently in our culture(s) can be considered reasonable doesn't mean that a reasonable concept of god can't exist. Just because none of the gods invented thus far are real doesn't mean that there isn't really a god.

If that's a fair (grossly simplified, though it must be) assessment, then I counter with the assertion that atheism is more logical, because it assumes the least of all the potential positions. Humans have a 'cause' fetish that is understandable when one understands our brains and evolution. Atheism is the most logical position in light of a proper understanding of the natural world and universe. As I understand nature, there's nothing for a god to do.

It is logical to assume a causative agent when considering the interactions our brains were 'designed' to comprehend (the social ones), but that mode of thinking does not apply universally. It would be most illogical to assume that it should.

Atheism makes an unproven claim in such a way that it excludes you potentially being wrong, agnosticism doesn't exclude any option, because it doesn't claim to know a certainty when it doesn't. Making agnosticism the only logical position.

That is just as interesting as it was the first 89 times you told me that. You are not agnostic.

Mudda is an agnostic atheist but he doesn't know it.

You just think that because I'm the only rational person here and you want a piece of that. Um... no.

Well no one's going to join your boring club. I've seen the insides of churches. A lot of fun. And it's a lot of fun telling people that god was made up by man a long time ago and no one has ever met him. Not even close. You sit on the fence and watch the match. You shouldn't even be commenting. You have no opinion. Just watch the adults speak. You know who else is agnostic about things?



Do you really not have an opinion on whether or not you are a god yourself waiting for this shell you are in now to die so you can go off and live for eternity glorifying god? It's so fucking stupid. But you stay on the fence you big baby.

Ideally you should admit you are an agnostic atheist. Anyone who doesn't get why agnostic atheism is the most rational position needs to wake up. I'm right.

The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.

 

[ding]

Since you declare agnosticism more logical, I think we can debate that. I understand that you think we, who declare ourselves atheist, are tossing the baby out with the bathwater. Just because none of the thousands of god concepts currently in our culture(s) can be considered reasonable doesn't mean that a reasonable concept of god can't exist. Just because none of the gods invented thus far are real doesn't mean that there isn't really a god.

If that's a fair (grossly simplified, though it must be) assessment, then I counter with the assertion that atheism is more logical, because it assumes the least of all the potential positions. Humans have a 'cause' fetish that is understandable when one understands our brains and evolution. Atheism is the most logical position in light of a proper understanding of the natural world and universe. As I understand nature, there's nothing for a god to do.

It is logical to assume a causative agent when considering the interactions our brains were 'designed' to comprehend (the social ones), but that mode of thinking does not apply universally. It would be most illogical to assume that it should.

Atheism makes an unproven claim in such a way that it excludes you potentially being wrong, agnosticism doesn't exclude any option, because it doesn't claim to know a certainty when it doesn't. Making agnosticism the only logical position.

That is just as interesting as it was the first 89 times you told me that. You are not agnostic.

I'm arguing against an atheist, isn't that what you claimed I didn't do and therefore wasn't agnostic?

Loser. Again.

No. If you were arguing against the atheists you would be making my argument and concluding that it was not knowable either way. You are quibbling over the philosophy of belief system not the existence of God which is the core of the philosophies. You can't bring yourself to argue the other side of existence because you don't believe it. Not that you don't know it. You literally do not believe it and that is why you are an atheist.

Why would I argue your side, you have no proof either? And you're totally unclear of the concept of agnosticism, I don't believe both sides equally, I reject both sides equally for lack of real proof.

That's my point. You have not rejected both sides equally. I even gave you a way to do it.

 

[sealybobo]

I don't live in the 4th century. Are you a humanist?

.

you quote their bible, you are a 4th century christian, a fraud.

So what Bible do you quote?

.

So what Bible do you quote?

the spoken religion of the Almighty, the same source as your 4th century forged book

And where has it been recorded. What book do you read that isn't corrupt or deluded?

.

And where has it been recorded. What book do you read that isn't corrupt or deluded?

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

the above is a 4th century forgery used to instill fear - there are no etchings in stone or records from the time of the events in antiquity for any of the proclamations in your book.


Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani


the above is the spoken religion and the epitaph your book knowingly disguises. a commemoration lost to future generations in pursuit of the Triumph of Good vs Evil - you represent a hollow, dead end of misery and deciet ...

View attachment 106933

bing the inquisitor

Scientists specializing in the mind have begun to unravel religion's DNA. They've produced theories, backed by empirical evidence including imaging studies of the brain at work that support the conclusion that it was humans who created God, not the other way around.

Like our physiological DNA, the psychological mechanisms behind faith evolved over the eons through natural selection. They helped our ancestors work effectively in small groups and survive and reproduce, traits developed long before recorded history, from foundations deep in our mammalian, primate and African hunter-gatherer past.

 

[sealybobo]

Atheism makes an unproven claim in such a way that it excludes you potentially being wrong, agnosticism doesn't exclude any option, because it doesn't claim to know a certainty when it doesn't. Making agnosticism the only logical position.

That is just as interesting as it was the first 89 times you told me that. You are not agnostic.

I'm arguing against an atheist, isn't that what you claimed I didn't do and therefore wasn't agnostic?

Loser. Again.

No. If you were arguing against the atheists you would be making my argument and concluding that it was not knowable either way. You are quibbling over the philosophy of belief system not the existence of God which is the core of the philosophies. You can't bring yourself to argue the other side of existence because you don't believe it. Not that you don't know it. You literally do not believe it and that is why you are an atheist.

Why would I argue your side, you have no proof either? And you're totally unclear of the concept of agnosticism, I don't believe both sides equally, I reject both sides equally for lack of real proof.

That's my point. You have not rejected both sides equally. I even gave you a way to do it.

You made it up

Scientists have so far identified about 20 hard-wired, evolved "adaptations" as the building blocks of religion. Like attachment, they are mechanisms that underlie human interactions: Brain-imaging studies at the National Institutes of Health showed that when test subjects were read statements about religion and asked to agree or disagree, the same brain networks that process human social behavior — our ability to negotiate relationships with others — were engaged.

Science and religion: God didn't make man; man made gods

 

[sealybobo]

Among the psychological adaptations related to religion are our need for reciprocity, our tendency to attribute unknown events to human agency, our capacity for romantic love, our fierce "out-group" hatreds and just as fierce loyalties to the in groups of kin and allies. Religion hijacks these traits. The rivalry between Sunni and Shiite Muslims, for example, or the doctrinal battles between Protestant and Catholic reflect our "groupish" tendencies.

 

[Mudda]

Since you declare agnosticism more logical, I think we can debate that. I understand that you think we, who declare ourselves atheist, are tossing the baby out with the bathwater. Just because none of the thousands of god concepts currently in our culture(s) can be considered reasonable doesn't mean that a reasonable concept of god can't exist. Just because none of the gods invented thus far are real doesn't mean that there isn't really a god.

If that's a fair (grossly simplified, though it must be) assessment, then I counter with the assertion that atheism is more logical, because it assumes the least of all the potential positions. Humans have a 'cause' fetish that is understandable when one understands our brains and evolution. Atheism is the most logical position in light of a proper understanding of the natural world and universe. As I understand nature, there's nothing for a god to do.

It is logical to assume a causative agent when considering the interactions our brains were 'designed' to comprehend (the social ones), but that mode of thinking does not apply universally. It would be most illogical to assume that it should.

Atheism makes an unproven claim in such a way that it excludes you potentially being wrong, agnosticism doesn't exclude any option, because it doesn't claim to know a certainty when it doesn't. Making agnosticism the only logical position.

That is just as interesting as it was the first 89 times you told me that. You are not agnostic.

Mudda is an agnostic atheist but he doesn't know it.

You just think that because I'm the only rational person here and you want a piece of that. Um... no.

Well no one's going to join your boring club. I've seen the insides of churches. A lot of fun. And it's a lot of fun telling people that god was made up by man a long time ago and no one has ever met him. Not even close. You sit on the fence and watch the match. You shouldn't even be commenting. You have no opinion. Just watch the adults speak. You know who else is agnostic about things?



Do you really not have an opinion on whether or not you are a god yourself waiting for this shell you are in now to die so you can go off and live for eternity glorifying god? It's so fucking stupid. But you stay on the fence you big baby.

Ideally you should admit you are an agnostic atheist. Anyone who doesn't get why agnostic atheism is the most rational position needs to wake up. I'm right.

The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.

Actually, I get to argue against atheists AND theists. As you're both deluded with no proof of your position.

 

[sealybobo]

It's an easy jump to say, conversing with the dead or to conjuring gods and praying to them.

Morality, which some see as imposed by gods or religion on savage humans, science sees as yet another adaptive strategy handed down to us by natural selection.

Yale psychology professor Paul Bloom notes that "it is often beneficial for humans to work together … which means it would have been adaptive to evaluate the niceness and nastiness of other individuals." In groundbreaking research, he and his team found that infants in their first year of life demonstrate aspects of an innate sense of right and wrong, good and bad, even fair and unfair. When shown a puppet climbing a mountain, either helped or hindered by a second puppet, the babies oriented toward the helpful puppet. They were able to make an evaluative social judgment, in a sense a moral response.

 

[sealybobo]

Atheism makes an unproven claim in such a way that it excludes you potentially being wrong, agnosticism doesn't exclude any option, because it doesn't claim to know a certainty when it doesn't. Making agnosticism the only logical position.

That is just as interesting as it was the first 89 times you told me that. You are not agnostic.

Mudda is an agnostic atheist but he doesn't know it.

You just think that because I'm the only rational person here and you want a piece of that. Um... no.

Well no one's going to join your boring club. I've seen the insides of churches. A lot of fun. And it's a lot of fun telling people that god was made up by man a long time ago and no one has ever met him. Not even close. You sit on the fence and watch the match. You shouldn't even be commenting. You have no opinion. Just watch the adults speak. You know who else is agnostic about things?



Do you really not have an opinion on whether or not you are a god yourself waiting for this shell you are in now to die so you can go off and live for eternity glorifying god? It's so fucking stupid. But you stay on the fence you big baby.

Ideally you should admit you are an agnostic atheist. Anyone who doesn't get why agnostic atheism is the most rational position needs to wake up. I'm right.

The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.

Actually, I get to argue against atheists AND theists. As you're both deluded with no proof of your position.

I'm explaining how you made it up. Not my fault you are stubborn or don't get it.

 

[Mudda]

Atheism makes an unproven claim in such a way that it excludes you potentially being wrong, agnosticism doesn't exclude any option, because it doesn't claim to know a certainty when it doesn't. Making agnosticism the only logical position.

That is just as interesting as it was the first 89 times you told me that. You are not agnostic.

I'm arguing against an atheist, isn't that what you claimed I didn't do and therefore wasn't agnostic?

Loser. Again.

No. If you were arguing against the atheists you would be making my argument and concluding that it was not knowable either way. You are quibbling over the philosophy of belief system not the existence of God which is the core of the philosophies. You can't bring yourself to argue the other side of existence because you don't believe it. Not that you don't know it. You literally do not believe it and that is why you are an atheist.

Why would I argue your side, you have no proof either? And you're totally unclear of the concept of agnosticism, I don't believe both sides equally, I reject both sides equally for lack of real proof.

That's my point. You have not rejected both sides equally. I even gave you a way to do it.

I'm stating right now that I reject both sides equally, you're just pissed because you know that I'm right.

 

[sealybobo]

Which of my beliefs are irrational? That the universe had a beginning?

Yes. When you hold dogmatically to the position that the universe must have had a beginning, that is irrational, particularly when you have been presented, repeatedly, with a perfectly sound theory of the origin of the universe that required no such beginning point.

That what started it is beyond science?

Yes. That is irrational. It presumes that an outside force started the universe, like one jump starts a car, with absolutely no evidence. Any belief for which there is no rational evidence is, by definition, irrational.

That what happened after it can be studied?

No. That's not irrational.

That the universe became self aware?

Yes, that is quite irrational. "The Universe" is an vast collection inanimate objects. It is not alive. It has no consciousness. It cannot become "self-aware"

That intelligence is the pinnacle of the evolution of matter?

That is not only irrational, but scientifically unsound. Matter neither evolves, nor has consciousness, let alone intelligence. Does a rock have intelligence? Does a grain of sand have intelligence? No. To suggest that matter has intelligence is the pinnacle of irrational thinking.

That a 1st Cause is required?

Yes. That is irrational. First, you can see my point to your first irrational claim. Second, without resorting to special pleading (a logical fallacy) every cause requires a preceding cause. When a belief requires a logical fallacy to make it work, it is, by definition, illogical, and therefore, irrational.

So, yes. You hold to a plethora of irrational beliefs.

The better we understand human psychology and neurology, the more we will uncover the underpinnings of religion. Some of them push us toward a belief in gods and make departing from it extraordinarily difficult. But it is possible.

We can be better as a species if we recognize religion as a man-made construct. We owe it to ourselves to at least consider the real roots of religious belief, so we can deal with life as it is, taking advantage of perhaps our mind's greatest adaptation: our ability to use reason.

Imagine that.

 

[Mudda]

That is just as interesting as it was the first 89 times you told me that. You are not agnostic.

Mudda is an agnostic atheist but he doesn't know it.

You just think that because I'm the only rational person here and you want a piece of that. Um... no.

Well no one's going to join your boring club. I've seen the insides of churches. A lot of fun. And it's a lot of fun telling people that god was made up by man a long time ago and no one has ever met him. Not even close. You sit on the fence and watch the match. You shouldn't even be commenting. You have no opinion. Just watch the adults speak. You know who else is agnostic about things?



Do you really not have an opinion on whether or not you are a god yourself waiting for this shell you are in now to die so you can go off and live for eternity glorifying god? It's so fucking stupid. But you stay on the fence you big baby.

Ideally you should admit you are an agnostic atheist. Anyone who doesn't get why agnostic atheism is the most rational position needs to wake up. I'm right.

The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.

Actually, I get to argue against atheists AND theists. As you're both deluded with no proof of your position.

I'm explaining how you made it up. Not my fault you are stubborn or don't get it.

There's an equal probability for the existence or not or a god until proven otherwise. You, sir, have nothing.

 

[sealybobo]

Mudda is an agnostic atheist but he doesn't know it.

You just think that because I'm the only rational person here and you want a piece of that. Um... no.

Well no one's going to join your boring club. I've seen the insides of churches. A lot of fun. And it's a lot of fun telling people that god was made up by man a long time ago and no one has ever met him. Not even close. You sit on the fence and watch the match. You shouldn't even be commenting. You have no opinion. Just watch the adults speak. You know who else is agnostic about things?



Do you really not have an opinion on whether or not you are a god yourself waiting for this shell you are in now to die so you can go off and live for eternity glorifying god? It's so fucking stupid. But you stay on the fence you big baby.

Ideally you should admit you are an agnostic atheist. Anyone who doesn't get why agnostic atheism is the most rational position needs to wake up. I'm right.

The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.

Actually, I get to argue against atheists AND theists. As you're both deluded with no proof of your position.

I'm explaining how you made it up. Not my fault you are stubborn or don't get it.

There's an equal probability for the existence or not or a god until proven otherwise. You, sir, have nothing.

So wrong but in America you are free to be wrong.

We can be better as a species if we recognize religion as a man-made construct. We owe it to ourselves to at least consider the real roots of religious belief, so we can deal with life as it is, taking advantage of perhaps our mind's greatest adaptation: our ability to use reason.

Imagine that.

 

[ding]

Since you declare agnosticism more logical, I think we can debate that. I understand that you think we, who declare ourselves atheist, are tossing the baby out with the bathwater. Just because none of the thousands of god concepts currently in our culture(s) can be considered reasonable doesn't mean that a reasonable concept of god can't exist. Just because none of the gods invented thus far are real doesn't mean that there isn't really a god.

If that's a fair (grossly simplified, though it must be) assessment, then I counter with the assertion that atheism is more logical, because it assumes the least of all the potential positions. Humans have a 'cause' fetish that is understandable when one understands our brains and evolution. Atheism is the most logical position in light of a proper understanding of the natural world and universe. As I understand nature, there's nothing for a god to do.

It is logical to assume a causative agent when considering the interactions our brains were 'designed' to comprehend (the social ones), but that mode of thinking does not apply universally. It would be most illogical to assume that it should.

Atheism makes an unproven claim in such a way that it excludes you potentially being wrong, agnosticism doesn't exclude any option, because it doesn't claim to know a certainty when it doesn't. Making agnosticism the only logical position.

That is just as interesting as it was the first 89 times you told me that. You are not agnostic.

Mudda is an agnostic atheist but he doesn't know it.

You just think that because I'm the only rational person here and you want a piece of that. Um... no.

Well no one's going to join your boring club. I've seen the insides of churches. A lot of fun. And it's a lot of fun telling people that god was made up by man a long time ago and no one has ever met him. Not even close. You sit on the fence and watch the match. You shouldn't even be commenting. You have no opinion. Just watch the adults speak. You know who else is agnostic about things?



Do you really not have an opinion on whether or not you are a god yourself waiting for this shell you are in now to die so you can go off and live for eternity glorifying god? It's so fucking stupid. But you stay on the fence you big baby.

Ideally you should admit you are an agnostic atheist. Anyone who doesn't get why agnostic atheism is the most rational position needs to wake up. I'm right.

The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.

Before you can know who God is, you have to first actually believe that there is a higher power than man. I for one do not believe that that is a tall order. Seems there is something greater than man out there. We know for a fact that at a minimum our level of intelligence exists. Is it really a leap to believe that there is something greater than that out there. The more I study science, the more I don't see how it could be any other way. Only then should you make an attempt at the who. You really shouldn't mix those until you do, it will only confuse you and lead you to accepting Czernobog's BS arguments which will only make you look foolish when you trot them out and get beat down. But if you do decide to take that small step, I suggest Huston Smith's Illustrated World Religions which gives a fair accounting of all the major religions. They have a lot more in common than you think. Of course the smart money is that this is all fun and games and you couldn't give a rat's ass.

 

[ding]

Mudda is an agnostic atheist but he doesn't know it.

You just think that because I'm the only rational person here and you want a piece of that. Um... no.

Well no one's going to join your boring club. I've seen the insides of churches. A lot of fun. And it's a lot of fun telling people that god was made up by man a long time ago and no one has ever met him. Not even close. You sit on the fence and watch the match. You shouldn't even be commenting. You have no opinion. Just watch the adults speak. You know who else is agnostic about things?



Do you really not have an opinion on whether or not you are a god yourself waiting for this shell you are in now to die so you can go off and live for eternity glorifying god? It's so fucking stupid. But you stay on the fence you big baby.

Ideally you should admit you are an agnostic atheist. Anyone who doesn't get why agnostic atheism is the most rational position needs to wake up. I'm right.

The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.

Actually, I get to argue against atheists AND theists. As you're both deluded with no proof of your position.

I'm explaining how you made it up. Not my fault you are stubborn or don't get it.

There's an equal probability for the existence or not or a god until proven otherwise. You, sir, have nothing.

There's another problem, you can't say there are equal odds unless you can actually make a case for those odds. You have done a magnificent job shooting down all of the cases for God, but you don't have a path to the God exists's case. You see, the problem you have with statistics is that if you say there are equal chances of each outcome and you ran a monte carlo simulation you would actually get nearly half outcomes being that there is a God. So, you can't use those odds because you have not proven those odds.

 

[sealybobo]

Atheism makes an unproven claim in such a way that it excludes you potentially being wrong, agnosticism doesn't exclude any option, because it doesn't claim to know a certainty when it doesn't. Making agnosticism the only logical position.

That is just as interesting as it was the first 89 times you told me that. You are not agnostic.

Mudda is an agnostic atheist but he doesn't know it.

You just think that because I'm the only rational person here and you want a piece of that. Um... no.

Well no one's going to join your boring club. I've seen the insides of churches. A lot of fun. And it's a lot of fun telling people that god was made up by man a long time ago and no one has ever met him. Not even close. You sit on the fence and watch the match. You shouldn't even be commenting. You have no opinion. Just watch the adults speak. You know who else is agnostic about things?



Do you really not have an opinion on whether or not you are a god yourself waiting for this shell you are in now to die so you can go off and live for eternity glorifying god? It's so fucking stupid. But you stay on the fence you big baby.

Ideally you should admit you are an agnostic atheist. Anyone who doesn't get why agnostic atheism is the most rational position needs to wake up. I'm right.

The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.

Before you can know who God is, you have to first actually believe that there is a higher power than man. I for one do not believe that that is a tall order. Seems there is something greater than man out there. We know for a fact that at a minimum our level of intelligence exists. Is it really a leap to believe that there is something greater than that out there. The more I study science, the more I don't see how it could be any other way. Only then should you make an attempt at the who. You really shouldn't mix those until you do, it will only confuse you and lead you to accepting Czernobog's BS arguments which will only make you look foolish when you trot them out and get beat down. But if you do decide to take that small step, I suggest Huston Smith's Illustrated World Religions which gives a fair accounting of all the major religions. They have a lot more in common than you think. Of course the smart money is that this is all fun and games and you couldn't give a rat's ass.

Yes it's very easy to fill in the blank for a question you will never be able to answer. That's why I am smarter than you. The answer is we just don't know.

And I did believe in God. I was thinking about this in church yesterday. Lots of time to think when you are bored. But a few years ago I prayed to God I'd join the church if I got this job. I got the job and joined the church. Then the job didn't work out. It was a horrible job. Thanks for nothing God.

Then I became an atheist and got a great job. maybe because i'm smarter now. Lots of atheists here. Absolutely no holy rollers. Where do they even exist in real life?

See, you religious nuts are the nuts here on USMB. You guys keep your mouths shut in person but come here and talk crazy shit. You don't want to be laughed at so you do keep your crazy thoughts in your home and church. YOU are the cowards. Come evangelicize around me and I'll politely mock you while I smile and nod. But I will challenge you in person. Fact is very few theists wear their religion on their sleeves. You guys are basically in the closet.