Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Gods are imaginary, those that believe in them are childlike in their view of reality, believing in fairy tales and absurdities.
Done
I am very intolerant of the willful and mindless ignorance that religion causes, for it is the greatest threat to civilization and mankind's future that exists.
Gods are imaginary, those that believe in them are childlike in their view of reality, believing in fairy tales and absurdities.
Done
I am very intolerant of the willful and mindless ignorance that religion causes, for it is the greatest threat to civilization and mankind's future that exists.
Well let's say I'm an atheist, and I'm the most powerful person in an overpopulated world.
What do I need you for? Are you not just a parasite that is eating from my plate?
What need have I for you?
Yet, the words that Jesus Christ spoke are the greatest threat to civilization?
To love your brother? To be selfless? To have mercy?
That is what you believe to be the greatest threat to civilization?
Let's say I don't believe that there are certain electromagnetic waves that exist because I cannot sense them.
Someone else claims they do exist, but cannot sense them either.
Let's say they do exist, but the technology available for detecting them does not exist.
Is the negative claim true even though it has been proven otherwise?
This often crops up. The logical and rational position is to not believe something that has not been proven. If there is good circumstantial reason to credit it, you give it that credit (e.g String theory and Dark matter), but it is still not to be taken as fact.
If and when it turns out to be true, well and good. If not the disbelief was justified. There must be many facts we don't know but until they are demonstrated, the only logical position is to regard them as unproven and not yet factual.
Quote:
Since, I assume you're speaking from a philosophical standpoint, I'll change it into a positive so it fits your protocol.
An atheist believes that nothing created something. You must prove that something came from nothing.
There is no way to prove this with current technology. I am still making an assertion that nothing caused everything when in fact everything exists, so can you prove to me that nothing at one time existed?
We do not believe - yet - that nothing created anything. We simply do not know and neither do those who claim that a god did it. That god - claim is not yet justified and it is not correct to claim it as a believable fact.
'We don't know -yet' is a perfectly good and logical standpoint.
This often crops up. The logical and rational position is to not believe something that has not been proven. If there is good circumstantial reason to credit it, you give it that credit (e.g String theory and Dark matter), but it is still not to be taken as fact.
If and when it turns out to be true, well and good. If not the disbelief was justified. There must be many facts we don't know but until they are demonstrated, the only logical position is to regard them as unproven and not yet factual.
We do not believe - yet - that nothing created anything. We simply do not know and neither do those who claim that a god did it. That god - claim is not yet justified and it is not correct to claim it as a believable fact.
'We don't know -yet' is a perfectly good and logical standpoint.
You don't think that everything was formed from nothing, and then for no reason it all came together and formed dinosaurs is more logical than things were created with intelligent design considering the statistical impossibility to the contrary?
Come back when atheists fly planes into buildings. Just because some person or organization makes a creed doesn't mean it applies to every atheist on the planet. Get real.
Let's say I don't believe that there are certain electromagnetic waves that exist because I cannot sense them.
Someone else claims they do exist, but cannot sense them either.
Let's say they do exist, but the technology available for detecting them does not exist.
Is the negative claim true even though it has been proven otherwise?
Since, I assume you're speaking from a philosphical standpoint, I'll change it into a positive so it fits your protocol.
An atheist believes that nothing created something. You must prove that something came from nothing.
There is no way to prove this with current technology. I am still making an assertion that nothing caused everything when in fact everything exists, so can you prove to me that nothing at one time existed?
Without the technology (using your own example), the existence is not proven. Therefore, the negative claim has not been proven otherwise.
An atheist (by definition) may or may not take a position on "nothing created something." You are pushing a position on them that they may or may not accept.
You don't think that everything was formed from nothing, and then for no reason it all came together and formed dinosaurs is more logical than things were created with intelligent design considering the statistical impossibility to the contrary?
Why is your assertion any more logical than mine?
Well, for one thing one has to explain where the Intelligent designer came from. I know that it is claimed that it has always existed, but the idea of a fully - formed and developed being without any origin seems no more reasonable than something from nothing (which, thanks to Prof. Hawking) is looking quite possible these days.
But whatever one supposes about the origins of Life the Universe and everything, the evidence that, once started, it progressed along a line of development through natural processes ought to be compelling.
So where does that fit into our discussion?..yep, we can keep an open mind about those origins without any real evidence. but where we do have evidence, it doesn't back up the religious theories. And where the evidence doesn't need religion, where we run short on evidence, to slip an intelligent designer in there as a stop - gap explanation (which, note, is then supposed to be taken as a believable fact) is just a bit too easy.
Come back when atheists fly planes into buildings. Just because some person or organization makes a creed doesn't mean it applies to every atheist on the planet. Get real.
I don't know about Islam, so I can't proclaim that what those men did was justified according to their religious beliefs, although I doubt it was.
I do know that if a person claimed to be Christian did something similiar, they would be in direct confrontation with the words of Jesus Christ.
I think it is absurd to believe that an atheist is not capable of such travesty. Have you not heard of Stalin?
You don't think that everything was formed from nothing, and then for no reason it all came together and formed dinosaurs is more logical than things were created with intelligent design considering the statistical impossibility to the contrary?
Why is your assertion any more logical than mine?
I don't think it is about logic. I could answer easily and say I don't care and don't take either position. It still has no bearing on any particular person's identity as an atheist, agnostic, apatheist, or any other -ist.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
