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.
Are you seriously comparing the millions of people that are religious(not all Christian) to that of a select few people? You are kidding right? Since when has one or even just a handful of people spoken for everyone? We are talking current times btw...not past.
No I was responding to the claim that theists are more rational thinking than atheists and just posited a few examples of theists and the games they play or played in the past. There is undeniable proof of these atrocities carried out in the name of their imaginary/man-made god, need we go there?
Quote:
HAHAH... I don't know what is funnier. The fact that you think all science in hard fact or that you think religion has been around for only 2000 years. Seeker, Religion predates most religions we know of today.
Science is not factual Oh boy I guess I must go back and redo my engineering degrees, nah! too old for that now.
Religion has been around a lot longer, my focus is on chritianity. It is after all what I came out of; have you perhaps invented a new religion that I am not aware of or is your just another derivative of the same?
Quote:
So, when the science is in your favor you agree with it. When the science isn't you don't.
Examples please, I hope the "spiritual fossil record" is not where you want to go with this.
PS there is another post of your I want to respond to in part
First, many people who believe in God do not realize that in every discussion about theism, their assertion is implicit: God exists. They do not need to say it. Every argument they make is under the assumption that the statement “God exists” is true. The fact that they identify themselves as believers is enough to serve as an assertion that a deity or deities exists. No assertion is being made by an atheist . The word “god” hasn’t even been defined and the nature of belief in that god has not been described; these must take place before any substantial discussion about the nature of God can begin. Atheists have no reason to provide these descriptions – without any beliefs about God, they have no reason to do so. It must be presumed that this onus rests upon the theist. The mere mention of one’s belief in God serves as an assertion that God exists.
Secondly, a person who rejects an assertion does not need to provide any justification for it. The evidence has to be provided by the party making the assertion. The person rejecting the assertion needs to provide nothing at all. Many theists try to escape this basic fact of life by declaring (in opposition to common sense) that their assertions need to be justified only to themselves in their personal experience.
Well then , I guess theres no arguement or need to justify , lets be clear....theres no need to present "adequate grounds to adduce" a non-belief in God.
Ok ............... ? Therefore the atheist agrees there are no adequate grounds for non-belief in a God
Well then , I guess theres no arguement or need to justify , lets be clear....theres no need to present "adequate grounds to adduce" a non-belief in God.
Ok ............... ? Therefore the atheist agrees there are no adequate grounds for non-belief in a God
No, there is no need for an atheist to present their grounds for no belief in god. It is up to the person asserting there is one to present the evidence and grounds for god.
You see, people who believe in a religion or are spiritual have nothing to lose if they are wrong. It is only the non-believers who suffer. I don't mean in hell or by fire. You might not even know you are being punished until you wake up(spiritually) and realize you where wrong.
The blue part is Pascal's wager and not saying that is what your beliefs are but does not fly well in most cases.
How would unbelievers suffer? This assumes anyone not thinking or believing as you do has in fact a less fulfilling life, this is called projection and maybe your life sucked before embarking on the spiritual journey but that does not hold true for the rest of the populace. It is a false premise. My life did not really suck before I became a believer and had I not bought into the myths, very little would have been different.
The threat of punishment still comes from the archaic system of fear based theology, you may think you are not thinking this but you probably are otherwise why play a "hell" card. You of all people should know atheists are not moved by this argument.
Quote:
I believe in past lives and that until now, I was suffering because I was without the spiritual knowledge I now have. In the past few years that I have developed this knowledge my life has changed completely. I have a better understanding of nature, and of how the world works. I am healthier, smarter, and simply better all around since I started my journey. Guess how my journey started? As an atheist who did not believe in anything and that all things spiritual were a joke. Now, three years and a few months later it is amazing where my life has lead me.
But, like me before, you will never understand until you understand what it is to be spiritual.
Kudos to you and your positive experiences, it seems you have something that is real and complimentary to your mortal existence.
I do not think spiritual things are a joke, there are many ways of being spiritual, introspection, conscious meditation but there is no set formula. I have this as I am a man of few words in RL but say a lot on forums expressing my thoughts and sometimes feelings. I think a lot.
To assume that others do not understand what it is to be spiritual, you are once again projecting your own experience in vagaries. As an ex christian, I had many spiritual experiences (or so I thought).
Maybe folk can learn from your experiences others from mine, we are a diverse people here. Of course when I see something I do not agree to I will challenge/question it.
No, there is no need for an atheist to present their grounds for no belief in god. It is up to the person asserting there is one to present the evidence and grounds for god.
Ok good....Thanks for reply. Tell me , if it is up to someone....who's responsibility or role is it ...to believe there is a God or not believe there is a God ?
No empirical facts are not what you claim they are. Sorry FAIL again, maybe look up what empirical evidence constitutes.
You lack of understanding of the scientific method is showing. It is not number crunching or appeal to numbers. Any scientist that tries this will be scoffed at.
Non sequitur. You only appeal to numbers/population/popularity that does not make what you say or believe true.
Blather blather not worth a response, you are obviously very emotionally vested in this, I understand that but sadly emotions do not win debates, facts do. Your alleged facts are fallacious at best, at worst really pathetic.
BTW I have thus far only used HS science, but that seems over your head. I think your immaturity is showing in your response with all the loooong words as if that is supposed to convince anyone, least of all me.
Whatsamatter?...didn't like my "Michael Buffer Intro" for ***God Exists***?
Oh, and, you are wrong...it IS an EMPIRICAL FACT that "God Exists" is the "reigning" viewpoint relative to the issue. Are you saying it isn't? If it's not...what is?
Also, ANOTHER thing you need to get hip to....EVERYTHING that is objectively determined comes down to "crunching numbers" about it in order to draw a conclusion. It's ALWAYS an argument that is proved based on "numbers". Numbers, numbers, numbers, numbers, NUMBERS!!!Hmmmmmmm...let's see...how long (a NUMBER) were the beaks on those finches?...and how many (a NUMBER) were there? AGAIN...are you saying it isn't a "numbers game"? If so, I challenge you to tell me how else to determine things objectively, using the scientific method, without "appealing to the NUMBERS"!
Though I recognize my argument is only valid "scientifically", I do feel it has merit: As evolution grinds on, Natural Selection will cause the most optimal "traits" to present in GREATER NUMBERS. By analyzing the data as to which "traits" present in GREATER NUMBERS we can determine which traits are "the best". Belief in God is a "trait" that presents in 90% of Homo sapiens...that PROVES "scientifically" that belief in God is the most optimal "trait".
It is in that way "NUMBERS" come into play on the matter.
But I'm surprised I have to explain how "Natural Selection" works--It works on NUMBERS.
But then, AGAIN...ALLLLLLL science works on NUMBERS. NUMBERS prove or disprove EVERYTHING. All you guys do is "APPEAL TO NUMBERS" to "PROVE" things.
But don't think for a second I don't admire you guys for using NUMBERS to figure out all about the complex workings of the stuff God made.
I myself, use something MUCH better than the SM---And that would be: Intuition, Perception, and WISDOM. Much better at determining TRUTH. But then...we all have to appeal to our "strong suit".
I dunno where you get that idea from. You generalize w/o any citation that I can defend. I assume nothing yet you seem to be free to do just the opposite
So I am not allowed to use a simple analogy which BTW is a given fact? Sorry if you see it as a science class.
Phd's in philosophy, yeah I can get one of those too, takes two years and will be a breeze for me.
He discovered it? That is news, I thought it was only a "theory"
Again I do not understand, what philosophy, you want my credentials in the sciences?
Dunno what you are so uptight about, I responded to our resident Phd mystic and he and I go back a long way. We may not agree on everything and that is ok.
Is he some kind of prophet to you guys? It really seems like I have struck a nerve or two.
I really don't know exactly what your knowledge is but you seem to think that many prof Scientists Chem Phys Bio..."reject a God or Christian Belief System"
Then....you go on to discuss science matters suggesting that you know more than any Thesists on the planet. RC as I noted before are extremely attentive to all science as well have fully recognized prof scientists on hand.
This is my complaint. The un-informed manner which you present...As well a Philosophy Degree at a recognized University requires quite a portfolio of pure science....
No, there is no need for an atheist to present their grounds for no belief in god. It is up to the person asserting there is one to present the evidence and grounds for god.
Nea...what you...and the rest of TAC refuse to face, is---THE REALITY OF THE WORLD about "God Belief". And why that reasonably puts the onus on the Atheists to "represent" and "prove their claim".
See Nea..."Burden of proof" would be on the "God Exists" claim...all else being equal--But, all things ARE NOT equal.
When you are the veeeeeeeeery slight majority...contesting the worldwide "standard"...that's a totally different story.
Belief has been the "norm" (8to9 out of 10) for THOOOOOOOUSANDS of years. It's the "incumbent position"...the "ruling viewpoint"...the "champion concept"! "God Exists" doesn't have to prove itself...it currently "holds office"! It's upon the weak challenger (Atheism) of nearly negligible merit/influence to prove itself. So far it's gotten steamrolled and flattened, in every "race". If it were seen as an "election"...Atheism would be viewed as being defeated in the biggest landslide EVER.
It is certainly reasonable, when debating an issue that ALREADY HAS 85-90% in favor of one premise...and only 10-15% in favor of a competing premise...to say the logical position would be that the small minority has the burden of proving the premise that is so uncommonly held.
MOF, it's actually a joke that the insignificant pipsqueak Challenger with a 1W-9L record would have the nerve to "call out" the REEEEEEEIGNING, AND DEFENNNNNNDING, UNNNNNN-DE-FEATED, CHAAAAAAAM-PI-OOOOOOON CONNNNNNNCEPT, OOOOOOF THE WORRRRRRRLD...and demand it "prove" itself. LOL!
And anyone can blow off with all the "ad Pop/Logical Fallacy" rebuttals they want...but the Atheist viewpoint STILL won't ever do anything but get trounced in the arena of world merit.
And before anyone gets all mentally irregular...I hold Atheism in higher regard, and view it as superior, to most concepts...and certainly above all organized religious dogma. I'm just pointing out the REALITY as to what "the way of the world" is.
"GOD EXISTS" is the looooooong established WORLD STANDARD...and anyone that wants to contest that, is going to have to prove THEIR case.
BTW...good luck with that...so far "The God Exists Concept" has "taken on all challengers" for thousands of years and "dusted them" like they weren't even there.
Nea...what you...and the rest of TAC refuse to face, is---THE REALITY OF THE WORLD about "God Belief". And why that reasonably puts the onus on the Atheists to "represent" and "prove their claim".
See Nea..."Burden of proof" would be on the "God Exists" claim...all else being equal--But, all things ARE NOT equal.
When you are the veeeeeeeeery slight majority...contesting the worldwide "standard"...that's a totally different story.
Belief has been the "norm" (8to9 out of 10) for THOOOOOOOUSANDS of years. It's the "incumbent position"...the "ruling viewpoint"...the "champion concept"! "God Exists" doesn't have to prove itself...it currently "holds office"! It's upon the weak challenger (Atheism) of nearly negligible merit/influence to prove itself. So far it's gotten steamrolled and flattened, in every "race". If it were seen as an "election"...Atheism would be viewed as being defeated in the biggest landslide EVER.
It is certainly reasonable, when debating an issue that ALREADY HAS 85-90% in favor of one premise...and only 10-15% in favor of a competing premise...to say the logical position would be that the small minority has the burden of proving the premise that is so uncommonly held.
MOF, it's actually a joke that the insignificant pipsqueak Challenger with a 1W-9L record would have the nerve to "call out" the REEEEEEEIGNING, AND DEFENNNNNNDING, UNNNNNN-DE-FEATED, CHAAAAAAAM-PI-OOOOOOON CONNNNNNNCEPT, OOOOOOF THE WORRRRRRRLD...and demand it "prove" itself. LOL!
And anyone can blow off with all the "ad Pop/Logical Fallacy" rebuttals they want...but the Atheist viewpoint STILL won't ever do anything but get trounced in the arena of world merit.
And before anyone gets all mentally irregular...I hold Atheism in higher regard, and view it as superior, to most concepts...and certainly above all organized religious dogma. I'm just pointing out the REALITY as to what "the way of the world" is.
"GOD EXISTS" is the looooooong established WORLD STANDARD...and anyone that wants to contest that, is going to have to prove THEIR case.
BTW...good luck with that...so far "The God Exists Concept" has "taken on all challengers" for thousands of years and "dusted them" like they weren't even there.
You wouldn't be criticizing the principal or tenet of Catholicism.... would you..?
Whatsamatter?...didn't like my "Michael Buffer Intro" for ***God Exists***?
Oh, and, you are wrong...it IS an EMPIRICAL FACT that "God Exists" is the "reigning" viewpoint relative to the issue. Are you saying it isn't? If it's not...what is?
God does not exist but then we have to ask which if the thousands of gods are we talking of here, the hindus have tens of thousands. If you are talking biblegod, then the evidence of its existence is very questionable. BTW dear, I was an xian for 30 years so I know exactly where you are coming from.
Quote:
Also, ANOTHER thing you need to get hip to....EVERYTHING that is objectively determined comes down to "crunching numbers" about it in order to draw a conclusion. It's ALWAYS an argument that is proved based on "numbers". Numbers, numbers, numbers, numbers, NUMBERS!!!Hmmmmmmm...let's see...how long (a NUMBER) were the beaks on those finches?...and how many (a NUMBER) were there? AGAIN...are you saying it isn't a "numbers game"? If so, I challenge you to tell me how else to determine things objectively, using the scientific method, without "appealing to the NUMBERS"!
I have already refuted the claim of the scientific method NOT being number crunching or appeal to popularity, science does not work that way. Religion aka belief in god, aka bondage if you look up the root word meaning is due to indoctrination. Science sets out to disprove a hypothesis and only if it passes this can it be deemed a theory. Peer review takes this and repeats the experiment or whatever and if the same resulyts are not achieved, it is rejected.
Quote:
Though I recognize my argument is only valid "scientifically", I do feel it has merit: As evolution grinds on, Natural Selection will cause the most optimal "traits" to present in GREATER NUMBERS. By analyzing the data as to which "traits" present in GREATER NUMBERS we can determine which traits are "the best". Belief in God is a "trait" that presents in 90% of Homo sapiens...that PROVES "scientifically" that belief in God is the most optimal "trait".
Belief in god is an indoctrination appealing to the superstition of man aka fear of the bogyman etc. As for your 90% these believe in A god not necessarily in YOUR god, it remains an appeal to numbers. Lemmings all follow the leader off the cliff edge to their detriment.
Quote:
It is in that way "NUMBERS" come into play on the matter.
But I'm surprised I have to explain how "Natural Selection" works--It works on NUMBERS.
No it does not, it is survival of the fittest, not the majority. EG my dog is the only survivor of his litter of 13.
Quote:
But then, AGAIN...ALLLLLLL science works on NUMBERS. NUMBERS prove or disprove EVERYTHING. All you guys do is "APPEAL TO NUMBERS" to "PROVE" things.
But don't think for a second I don't admire you guys for using NUMBERS to figure out all about the complex workings of the stuff God made.
I myself, use something MUCH better than the SM---And that would be: Intuition, Perception, and WISDOM. Much better at determining TRUTH. But then...we all have to appeal to our "strong suit".
Intuition, perception and wisdom are not exclusive to any group, you fail again. The SM deals in facts not speculation, delusion or pretenses.
There is nothing you do that I can repeat to prove it true. I just have to take your word for it. I tried that once but it didn't work. They call it having faith. I do not need faith to NOT believe in gods, the evidence speaks for itself, there is none.
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.
Oh boy I guess I must go back and redo my engineering degrees, nah! too old for that now. 
