Atheists causing problems for Muslims (as they already do for Christians) (quotes, faith)

[Shirina]

Originally Posted by jeffbase40

Someone who expounds logic and reason shouldn't have to resort to razor sharp snark, foaming biting type rhetoric which is your usual tone and content here. If you can't separate emotion from your reasoning then why should anyone trust it?

Jeff, it wouldn't matter one way or the other.

My razor-sharp snark erupted when it became all too clear that logic was getting me absolutely nowhere.

Would you prefer it if I went back to writing drab, boring essays devoid of color, personality, flavor, and emotion? Are you incapable of seeing the logic in my posts despite whatever emotion might be there, as well? Do you think it impossible that both can exist side by side?

Sure, I can write boring posts filled with nothing BUT logic.

And you know what? You would respond to them just the same. Wouldn't matter.

Because, believe me, on other forums, I've actually been accused of being cold and emotionless before because my posts were exactly what you seem to want -- empty of emotion, containing pure logic, critical thought, analysis, fact, and conclusion.

So why am I so full of razor-snark (as you put it) here? Hmm?

Although as I've said before, I absolutely abhor theocratic fascism -- but that alone wasn't what riled me. It was the deliberate obtuseness, the question avoidance, the strawman arguments, the constant accusations of how I hate Christians, the Tin Foil Hat Society nonsense about how Christianity was being persecuted and ... need I go on?

What's worse is that you'll probably respond to this post defending everything from fascism to Christian persecution which will, of course, only prove my point and despite this you STILL won't get it.

And then you'll continue to wonder why I get snarky.

But hey, who knows ... there's always tomorrow.

[Freak80]

Ignorance is not evidence for deities. The unknown is just the unknown.

Unfortunately, many people have been programmed/brainwashed to believe that the unknown is evidence for (their particular) deity.

So let's have a deprogramming session:

Everyone repeat after me:
The unknown is not evidence for deities.
The unknown is not evidence for deities.
The unknown is not evidence for deities.
Repeat 100 more times or until you no longer believe the fallacy that the unknown is evidence for deities.

[Freak80]

Originally Posted by Vizio

I still like science. I just watched a video the other day on Quantum Physics. It fascinates me. There is a whole universe of things for us to study.

I'm curious to why you would like science. If the unknown is evidence for the Christian God, then science is steadily eliminating the "evidence" and has been for some time.

The weather was said to be controlled by the Christian God, until meteorology and fluid mechanics discovered what really controlled the weather. The diversity of life on earth was once considered "evidence" for the Christian God, until science discovered evolution as the most likely mechanism. Et Cetera.

Without science, the "evidence" for your particular deity (and obviously not someone else's deity ) was everywhere. Now the "evidence" is reduced to the unknowns at the Big Bang and the unknowns about how the first life forms started.

[nng]

I believe in god and in prayer but I think religion is made up...there are so many different religions in this world, and the believers of those religions all say their religion is the true religion... chances are all religions are made up.. this is my personal opinion..

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by nng

I believe in god and in prayer but I think religion is made up...there are so many different religions in this world, and the believers of those religions all say their religion is the true religion... chances are all religions are made up.. this is my personal opinion..

That also has potential. Once you realize that personal gods and their religions and Holy Books are just man -made inventions, then cease to be a problem and atheism has only an academic disagreement. which is that the reasons to believe there is a Mind behind Life, the universe and everything are either stopgaps for unexplained questions, arguments that fail under study and a belief -feeling that is very persuasive but actually not a good reason to believe.

Originally Posted by O.A.Bachlow

Even a tree thinks....it might take ten thousand years to get a creative thought out and generate a seed that flies like a helicopter...a seed that is more widely dispersed...or a common burr that sticks to the cuff of your pants and gets a free ride for a mile and then plants itself...this is thought....this is intelligence. The universe is conscious. There is a fantastic design. I think the term intelligent design is great until some non thinking wack job so called Christian states that the world is only 6000 years old...Religion and fantastic extremism and myth give God a bad name.

God does not use magic or trickery to operate. Water into wine is a myth and virgin birth is impossible...These are man made religious creations...All I know is that logic and reality is what Christ was about....the rest is garbage.

Sounds like there is potential there. Just need to think a bit beyond 'Amazing..must have been designed' to 'Amazing...must have taken a million years of evolution', and you are There.

[Vizio]

Originally Posted by Shirina

You don't HAVE any evidence, Vizio.

And that isn't just me talking. If you had evidence, the entire world would be rocking back on its heels and the debate would be over.

But it's not. Which means the evidence (so-called) isn't anywhere near conclusive enough to prove that a god exists much less that your specific god exists.

The fact that the universe exists testifies to the fact that it had to be created.

No--you don't. But you'd rather believe in "evolutiondidit" or "bigbangdidit" than God. I get that. That's just your belief, and you don't need evidence. You choose to believe it.

"Well ... since YOU don't know how the sun originated and since the best minds in the world haven't figured out how it happened, the only possible explanation is that God created it with magic!"

Why are you people so obsessed with magic? We don't believe in magic.

But yes, unless there is another viable option, the only logical thing would be to believe in a Creator. But I know--you guys are not exactly logical, are you?

Of course today we know all about the sun and the life cycles of stars. Even you would no longer claim that the sun just "poofed" into being the way you now claim that humans "poofed" into being. Unless, of course, you're a Young Earth Creationist which you have said repeatedly that you're not.

I am actually a Young Earther. I'm not suggesting someone is a heretic if they think the earth is older, but I do believe it's less than 20k years old.

So no, they did not just "poof" into existence. I believe God created them, without magic.

Therefore, this notion that stumping science with the "How did life begin?" question is somehow proving the existence of a god is just as nonsensical now as stumping science with "Where did the sun come from?" was then.

If we have an antonymic pair of solutions: "There is a personal creator", or "There is not a personal creator", we know that disproving one proves the other. There is no third option. We know that it's impossible for this universe to come into existence without a personal creator causing it. That's called "science". It's been proven. There is no possibility. None.

So the only remaining option is that there was a creator.

By the same token, there's simply no reason to expect science to have all of the answers today any more than there was a reason to expect science to have all of the answers 100, 300, 500, or 1000 years ago. Just what makes you think that, today, science stands at the pinnacle of knowledge? What makes you think that, today, all that can be known is known? All that can be discovered has been discovered? Thus, if we still do not know where life came from, it will never be known and, therefore, it must have a supernatural (ergo, divine) cause?

There's some super-flawed reasoning with the cosmological argument. There always was.

I have yet to seee you point out the issues with the cosmological argument.

[Vizio]

Originally Posted by Freak80

I'm curious to why you would like science. If the unknown is evidence for the Christian God, then science is steadily eliminating the "evidence" and has been for some time.

I just find it fascinating.

The weather was said to be controlled by the Christian God, until meteorology and fluid mechanics discovered what really controlled the weather. The diversity of life on earth was once considered "evidence" for the Christian God, until science discovered evolution as the most likely mechanism. Et Cetera.

God does control the weather. I have no problems believing that he is in charge over it. But yes, it does still have a natural explanation.

I do draw the line at evolution, though. I just haven't seen any reason to believe in theistic evolution. I think it runs counter to what we actually see in science, and the Bible.

Without science, the "evidence" for your particular deity (and obviously not someone else's deity ) was everywhere. Now the "evidence" is reduced to the unknowns at the Big Bang and the unknowns about how the first life forms started.

How do you know the Big Bang started it? And what caused the Big Bang?

[InsaneInDaMembrane]

Originally Posted by Shirina

You don't HAVE any evidence, Vizio.

And that isn't just me talking. If you had evidence, the entire world would be rocking back on its heels and the debate would be over.

But it's not. Which means the evidence (so-called) isn't anywhere near conclusive enough to prove that a god exists much less that your specific god exists.



It's not just me, Vizio. I'm not a self back-patter. I have had FAR too many people say so for me to adopt any sort of false modesty on this point.



I haven't the slightest idea.

And neither do you.

Not that this question has anything whatsoever to do with any kind of evidence for the existence of a god, mind you, and it certainly offers no evidence for the existence of your specific god.

It only represents a question science hasn't answered yet.

Just like there was a time when science hadn't yet answered the question: How did the sun get here? I'm sure at some point there were deity worshipers, perhaps even Christians, who used the same argument regarding the sun that you're making with the origin of life.

"Well ... since YOU don't know how the sun originated and since the best minds in the world haven't figured out how it happened, the only possible explanation is that God created it with magic!"

Of course today we know all about the sun and the life cycles of stars. Even you would no longer claim that the sun just "poofed" into being the way you now claim that humans "poofed" into being. Unless, of course, you're a Young Earth Creationist which you have said repeatedly that you're not.

Therefore, this notion that stumping science with the "How did life begin?" question is somehow proving the existence of a god is just as nonsensical now as stumping science with "Where did the sun come from?" was then.

By the same token, there's simply no reason to expect science to have all of the answers today any more than there was a reason to expect science to have all of the answers 100, 300, 500, or 1000 years ago. Just what makes you think that, today, science stands at the pinnacle of knowledge? What makes you think that, today, all that can be known is known? All that can be discovered has been discovered? Thus, if we still do not know where life came from, it will never be known and, therefore, it must have a supernatural (ergo, divine) cause?

There's some super-flawed reasoning with the cosmological argument. There always was.

I think you dropped your mic.

Originally Posted by Vizio

God does control the weather. I have no problems believing that he is in charge over it. But yes, it does still have a natural explanation.

What you mean to say is that you believe that God can intervene to control the weather and over ride by miracles the natural cause of whether. You don't know that God controls the weather - you have zero evidence for such a claim.

I do draw the line at evolution, though. I just haven't seen any reason to believe in theistic evolution. I think it runs counter to what we actually see in science, and the Bible.

ID runs counter to everything we observe in nature. This is why you invoke a story about sin and the Fall because the world that we see with our very own eyes mitigates against the attributes of a intelligent, all-powerful, all-knowing, loving God. And frankly, from what you write you don't understand evolution.

How do you know the Big Bang started it? And what caused the Big Bang?

Reminds of the quote by Theodosius Dobzhansky:

There are people... to whom the gaps in our understanding of nature are pleasing for a different reason. These people hope that the gaps will be permanent, and that what is unexplained will also remain inexplicable. By a curious twist of reasoning, what is unexplained is assumed to be the realm of divine activity. The historical odds are all against the God-of-the-gaps being able to retain these shelters in perpetuity. There is nothing, however, that can satisfy the type of mind which refuses to accept this testimony of historical experience.

[Nozzferrahhtoo]

Originally Posted by Shirina

Jeff, it wouldn't matter one way or the other. My razor-sharp snark erupted when it became all too clear that logic was getting me absolutely nowhere.

That's true. One one hand we have a group of people telling us that if you use emotive terms like "Sky Fairy" that you will push them away with your snark.

I take a different approach. I remove ALL emotion from it when I address it and I will say something like "Do you have any substantiation for the claim that our universe was created and/or is being maintained by a non-human intelligent intentional agency?" but the theists here take exception to that.

So when you use snark or sarcasm some take exception. When you use absolutely none at all some take exception to that too. How does one win?

And what is worse, for me at least, is that when you do remove all emotion for it and try to just be entirely cool and intellectual..... the reader puts their own tone in and assumes that was the one you were using when you wrote it. And, when someone disagrees with my positions, the tone they ascribe to me..... entirely of their own invention..... is invariably a negative one.