Atheists are just as deluded as theists...

[ding]

Thanks for proving you aren’t agnostic.

That's a dream of yours, that I'm not agnostic. Why? It reeks of jealousy.

You misspelled truth.

I spelled your truth properly j-e-a-l-o-u-s.

Your anti-religious behaviors say otherwise.

Calling you on your nonsense is "anti-religious"? Um...no.

It's your entire body of work, Taz, not one post.

 

[ding]

I actually believe there is a god, but not as an explanation for the unknown. I reached the conclusion by observing that all human cultures throughout history have had some type of religion/god. If all human cultures experience the sense of a god (non believers are the outliers) then it stands to reason that all human cultures experience or sense something and what they call that sense is god, or other type of deity. It does exist, but it is somewhat undefined. Or maybe not.

In ancient times, they were simply ignoramuses who were trying to make sense of their surroundings. Now we have lots of knowledge and tools, and we can't find shit about a god.

That is a textbook example of the dunning effect you just displayed.

If it were as you say it wouldn’t have survived 6000 years. So it must be something else.

So if the story of Santa Claus lasts 6000 years, he becomes real?

You do realize that was based on an actual person who really did exist, right? So there is an element of truth in the story of Santa Clause.

And Jesus is possibly, even probably, based on an actual person. But we all figured out that Santa ain't coming down no chimney with prezzies!

The allegorical account of Santa is no different than the allegorical account of Genesis. Stories were told a certain way so that they could be remembered and passed down orally. That doesn't mean the underlying truths of the accounts are false. Quite the contrary, they are absolutely true that's why it was important to pass down the accounts from generation to generation.

 

[Taz]

That's a dream of yours, that I'm not agnostic. Why? It reeks of jealousy.

You misspelled truth.

I spelled your truth properly j-e-a-l-o-u-s.

Your anti-religious behaviors say otherwise.

Calling you on your nonsense is "anti-religious"? Um...no.

It's your entire body of work, Taz, not one post.

You're just butthurt over the hard questions you can't answer. Lighten up.

 

[Taz]

In ancient times, they were simply ignoramuses who were trying to make sense of their surroundings. Now we have lots of knowledge and tools, and we can't find shit about a god.

That is a textbook example of the dunning effect you just displayed.

If it were as you say it wouldn’t have survived 6000 years. So it must be something else.

So if the story of Santa Claus lasts 6000 years, he becomes real?

You do realize that was based on an actual person who really did exist, right? So there is an element of truth in the story of Santa Clause.

And Jesus is possibly, even probably, based on an actual person. But we all figured out that Santa ain't coming down no chimney with prezzies!

The allegorical account of Santa is no different than the allegorical account of Genesis. Stories were told a certain way so that they could be remembered and passed down orally. That doesn't mean the underlying truths of the accounts are false. Quite the contrary, they are absolutely true that's why it was important to pass down the accounts from generation to generation.

"they are absolutely true", so Noah really did build a boat and had 2 of every animal on it?

 

[ding]

You misspelled truth.

I spelled your truth properly j-e-a-l-o-u-s.

Your anti-religious behaviors say otherwise.

Calling you on your nonsense is "anti-religious"? Um...no.

It's your entire body of work, Taz, not one post.

You're just butthurt over the hard questions you can't answer. Lighten up.

My butt is just fine, Taz.

I'm not the one who took offense at being called anti-religious or atheist. That was you.

 

[ding]

That is a textbook example of the dunning effect you just displayed.

If it were as you say it wouldn’t have survived 6000 years. So it must be something else.

So if the story of Santa Claus lasts 6000 years, he becomes real?

You do realize that was based on an actual person who really did exist, right? So there is an element of truth in the story of Santa Clause.

And Jesus is possibly, even probably, based on an actual person. But we all figured out that Santa ain't coming down no chimney with prezzies!

The allegorical account of Santa is no different than the allegorical account of Genesis. Stories were told a certain way so that they could be remembered and passed down orally. That doesn't mean the underlying truths of the accounts are false. Quite the contrary, they are absolutely true that's why it was important to pass down the accounts from generation to generation.

"they are absolutely true", so Noah really did build a boat and had 2 of every animal on it?

Again, you seem to be incapable of processing what I wrote about allegory.

Why don't you play back for me what I said about allegory so that I can see where you got off track. Fair enough?

 

[ding]

FWIW, Taz creates a thread about atheists being deluded and then proceeds to discuss religion. SMH.

 

[Taz]

I spelled your truth properly j-e-a-l-o-u-s.

Your anti-religious behaviors say otherwise.

Calling you on your nonsense is "anti-religious"? Um...no.

It's your entire body of work, Taz, not one post.

You're just butthurt over the hard questions you can't answer. Lighten up.

My butt is just fine, Taz.

I'm not the one who took offense at being called anti-religious or atheist. That was you.

Atheist is cool, I might even be an agnostic atheist, people on this board have different meanings for the term, it's all good, it's not about the label, it's about the search for the truth.

 

[Taz]

FWIW, Taz creates a thread about atheists being deluded and then proceeds to discuss religion. SMH.

Then why are YOU here? I was discussing atheist versus agnostic with some people before you butted in.

 

[ding]

Your anti-religious behaviors say otherwise.

Calling you on your nonsense is "anti-religious"? Um...no.

It's your entire body of work, Taz, not one post.

You're just butthurt over the hard questions you can't answer. Lighten up.

My butt is just fine, Taz.

I'm not the one who took offense at being called anti-religious or atheist. That was you.

Atheist is cool, I might even be an agnostic atheist, people on this board have different meanings for the term, it's all good, it's not about the label, it's about the search for the truth.

Which explains why you are still trying to subordinate religion in a thread about atheism?

Try militant atheist, Taz, because that's what you are.

 

[ding]

FWIW, Taz creates a thread about atheists being deluded and then proceeds to discuss religion. SMH.

Then why are YOU here?

To prove my point that you are not agnostic. If you recall, you created this thread to prove you were agnostic.

You aren't. You're a militant atheist. Be proud of it.

 

[Taz]

Calling you on your nonsense is "anti-religious"? Um...no.

It's your entire body of work, Taz, not one post.

You're just butthurt over the hard questions you can't answer. Lighten up.

My butt is just fine, Taz.

I'm not the one who took offense at being called anti-religious or atheist. That was you.

Atheist is cool, I might even be an agnostic atheist, people on this board have different meanings for the term, it's all good, it's not about the label, it's about the search for the truth.

Which explains why you are still trying to subordinate religion in a thread about atheism?

Try militant atheist, Taz, because that's what you are.

You want that label for me? Go for it, we were talking about the difference of all the labels...

 

[sealybobo]

... as there's also no proof that a god can't be possible. Or can any atheist here prove that god is not possible?

They don't need to. Atheism is not the conviction that there is no god. It's the lack of belief in a god or gods. Big difference.

Ya, that's what it seems, I've always seen the two as sort of distinct, atheists says god is a dumb idea, and agnostics say there's no proof for a god but that that doesn't mean that there isn't one. I'm finding out that those lines are more blurred for most atheists. That's cool, now I know.

Until we understand something we “do not know”. Positing a ‘god’ in place of admitting personal ignorance is an unfounded leap which demonstrates a fundamental lack of humility.

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.

#21

Why there is no god

And an outlier for the entire history of mankind. So there must be something to this God thing and when we drill into it we find there is.

Or not. Or it could be all in our heads. Something we made up when we were primitive and something we hang on to because we are still literally 1 foot out of the cave.

It's something we are shedding. Slowly but it's happening. At least all of the man made religions who claim he visited. No he didn't. So everything formal that we know about the big guy is a lie. You can "believe" there is a creator but you have to start at the beginning. What evidence do you have? Nothing? Then this isn't even a theory. It's a hypothesis based on no facts.

 

[Taz]

FWIW, Taz creates a thread about atheists being deluded and then proceeds to discuss religion. SMH.

Then why are YOU here?

To prove my point that you are not agnostic. If you recall, you created this thread to prove you were agnostic.

You aren't. You're a militant atheist. Be proud of it.

I started this thread to see if there are any atheists who think that a god is not possible. Didn't find any here, and we were discussing the difference of atheism versus agnstic. You like "militant", that's ok if it floats your boat.

 

[ding]

It's your entire body of work, Taz, not one post.

You're just butthurt over the hard questions you can't answer. Lighten up.

My butt is just fine, Taz.

I'm not the one who took offense at being called anti-religious or atheist. That was you.

Atheist is cool, I might even be an agnostic atheist, people on this board have different meanings for the term, it's all good, it's not about the label, it's about the search for the truth.

Which explains why you are still trying to subordinate religion in a thread about atheism?

Try militant atheist, Taz, because that's what you are.

You want that label for me? Go for it, we were talking about the difference of all the labels...

What I want is irrelevant. It is what it is. That's what you are.

 

[ding]

FWIW, Taz creates a thread about atheists being deluded and then proceeds to discuss religion. SMH.

Then why are YOU here?

To prove my point that you are not agnostic. If you recall, you created this thread to prove you were agnostic.

You aren't. You're a militant atheist. Be proud of it.

I started this thread to see if there are any atheists who think that a god is not possible. Didn't find any here, and we were discussing the difference of atheism versus agnstic. You like "militant", that's ok if it floats your boat.

You started this thread as a direct response to my argument that you were not an agnostic.

 

[Taz]

You're just butthurt over the hard questions you can't answer. Lighten up.

My butt is just fine, Taz.

I'm not the one who took offense at being called anti-religious or atheist. That was you.

Atheist is cool, I might even be an agnostic atheist, people on this board have different meanings for the term, it's all good, it's not about the label, it's about the search for the truth.

Which explains why you are still trying to subordinate religion in a thread about atheism?

Try militant atheist, Taz, because that's what you are.

You want that label for me? Go for it, we were talking about the difference of all the labels...

What I want is irrelevant. It is what it is. That's what you are.

Because YOU decided? Or did your god tell you that?

 

[ding]

... as there's also no proof that a god can't be possible. Or can any atheist here prove that god is not possible?

They don't need to. Atheism is not the conviction that there is no god. It's the lack of belief in a god or gods. Big difference.

Ya, that's what it seems, I've always seen the two as sort of distinct, atheists says god is a dumb idea, and agnostics say there's no proof for a god but that that doesn't mean that there isn't one. I'm finding out that those lines are more blurred for most atheists. That's cool, now I know.

Until we understand something we “do not know”. Positing a ‘god’ in place of admitting personal ignorance is an unfounded leap which demonstrates a fundamental lack of humility.

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.

#21

Why there is no god

And an outlier for the entire history of mankind. So there must be something to this God thing and when we drill into it we find there is.

Or not. Or it could be all in our heads...

Not statistically possible.

 

[Taz]

FWIW, Taz creates a thread about atheists being deluded and then proceeds to discuss religion. SMH.

Then why are YOU here?

To prove my point that you are not agnostic. If you recall, you created this thread to prove you were agnostic.

You aren't. You're a militant atheist. Be proud of it.

I started this thread to see if there are any atheists who think that a god is not possible. Didn't find any here, and we were discussing the difference of atheism versus agnstic. You like "militant", that's ok if it floats your boat.

You started this thread as a direct response to my argument that you were not an agnostic.

Apparently, all the atheists here are agnostic like I described. Why does this upset you?

 

[ding]

... as there's also no proof that a god can't be possible. Or can any atheist here prove that god is not possible?

They don't need to. Atheism is not the conviction that there is no god. It's the lack of belief in a god or gods. Big difference.

Ya, that's what it seems, I've always seen the two as sort of distinct, atheists says god is a dumb idea, and agnostics say there's no proof for a god but that that doesn't mean that there isn't one. I'm finding out that those lines are more blurred for most atheists. That's cool, now I know.

Until we understand something we “do not know”. Positing a ‘god’ in place of admitting personal ignorance is an unfounded leap which demonstrates a fundamental lack of humility.

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.

#21

Why there is no god

And an outlier for the entire history of mankind. So there must be something to this God thing and when we drill into it we find there is.

Or not. Or it could be all in our heads. Something we made up when we were primitive and something we hang on to because we are still literally 1 foot out of the cave.

It's something we are shedding. Slowly but it's happening. At least all of the man made religions who claim he visited. No he didn't. So everything formal that we know about the big guy is a lie. You can "believe" there is a creator but you have to start at the beginning. What evidence do you have? Nothing? Then this isn't even a theory. It's a hypothesis based on no facts.

The evidence is all around you. We've been through this a dozen times. When you are ready you will see it. And not one moment sooner.