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.
Absolute nonsense. How can you claim to have proof when you MUST admit "We do NOT Know" whether or not there is a God? There is insufficient reason to dismiss God given the undeniable (and unknown) attributes of the reality responsible for our existence. But there is sufficient reason to dismiss tooth fairies or what not. You attack SPECIFIC human explanations of God but NOT the EXISTENCE of God. Your arrogance blinds you to this critical lack and our ignorance about it remains untouched making your presumption of the default presumptuous indeed. Beliefs require no such proof or evidence because they are beliefs just as your belief there is no God requires no proof unless you try to make it a CLAIM by presumption.
You still don't get it. Even though it's been explained repeatedly. The possibility of an intelligent creator cannot be ruled out, but (take evolution) there is no good reason to postulate one. The evidence makes it unnecessary. True, the origins of matter are not even as well explained theoretically as abiogenesis, and that is conceded. But the alternative theory of a complex intelligence that needed no origin is far less likely, and your argument from creative attributes is no more than a semantic trick that fools nobody, though you absurdly refer to Unknown attributes as though they were evidence.
On top of that absurdity you conflate two different arguments - an undiisprovable possible god (aside from the counter intuitive claim of a complex intelligent being without origin) with refutation or debunking of the arguments put forward for there being such a god (order. complexity, are the usual ones).
Having displayed your muddled thinking (apart from never addressing any of the refutations) you then do your usual sneering at anyone who disagrees. There's nothing wrong with your mind, nor with you, but Faith makes you a laughing -stock and a nasty piece of work into the bargain.
why do atheist deny claims that offer a explanation, mechanism, and make repeatable predictions just because they have been indoctrinated into "anti-theism"? or grew up in areas where religious people are oppressive?
i haven't met one anti-theist that doesn't have an axe to grind. sounds like the same executive function disconnects as fundy theism to me.
Why do you keep making up lies about atheists just to support your incoherent prejudice?
Of course Ozzy will agree with ou. he doesn't care whether it's true or makes sense. He only knows that we are 'attacking religion' and that is good enough reason to go for us, and never mind whether the arguments are valid or not.
why do atheist deny claims that offer a explanation, mechanism, and make repeatable predictions just because they have been indoctrinated into "anti-theism"? or grew up in areas where religious people are oppressive?
i haven't met one anti-theist that doesn't have an axe to grind. sounds like the same executive function disconnects as fundy theism to me.
Of course we have an axe to grind. It makes Arach look absurd to pretend that there is something wrong in having an axe to grind. Pretty much everyone who posts here has some axe to grind. That is quite irrelevant. Arach just wastes so much bandwidth talking irrelevance. And of course grinding his own axe and dissembling about what it is - it isn't anti - 'Fundy' atheism, but anti anything Liberal.
At least religious fundamentalists have a REASON for spreading their message. Religion has always had a positive place in society. Always.
Always.
Yes, always. Any claim to the opposite is just anti-theistic people trying to label everything by the society of the time and it's particular religious affiliation.
You mean like:
The "Gunpowder Plot"
Pogroms related persecution and ethnic cleansing
The Ku Klux Klan
Anti-abortion violence, including murders and intimidation
Anti-gay violence, including murders and intimidation
Holy wars
The Inquistion
Using the biblical account of Joshua and the Battle of Jericho to justify genocide against Catholics
Forced conversions of people of color
Violence against Mormons, including the murder of Joseph Smith and his brother
Oh, but that's not 'Religion', that what Men do. "Religion" is anything that looks nice. Cherry -picking the Bible and cafeteria -Christianity go hand in hand. And there is an odd quirk in this business of discarding 'Not real Christians' and the things they do that don't look so good - but there is still an element of cover -up: 'Look on the positive side, don't touch these people. Let them get away with it.' They are part of the cover -up all right.
Shut up and go away, don't talk about it, don't make religion look bad. That has always been the underlying agenda behind the real beef they have : 'atheists are attacking religion'.
Oh, but that's not 'Religion', that what Men do. "Religion" is anything that looks nice. Cherry -picking the Bible and cafeteria -Christianity go hand in hand. And there is an odd quirk in this business of discarding 'Not real Christians' and the things they do that don't look so good - but there is still an element of cover -up: 'Look on the positive side, don't touch these people. Let them get away with it.' They are part of the cover -up all right.
You still don't get it. Even though it's been explained repeatedly. The possibility of an intelligent creator cannot be ruled out, but (take evolution) there is no good reason to postulate one. The evidence makes it unnecessary. True, the origins of matter are not even as well explained theoretically as abiogenesis, and that is conceded. But the alternative theory of a complex intelligence that needed no origin is far less likely, and your argument from creative attributes is no more than a semantic trick that fools nobody, though you absurdly refer to Unknown attributes as though they were evidence.
You dismiss our intelligence as some "evolved or emergent" property of the UNEXPLAINED existence of life and consciousness AS IF that is an explanation despite repeated attempts to point out that it EXPLAINS nothing. You obviously can't distinguish between EXPLANATION and mere OBSERVATION.
Quote:
On top of that absurdity, you conflate two different arguments - an undisprovable possible god (aside from the counter-intuitive claim of a complex intelligent being without origin) with refutation or debunking of the arguments put forward for there being such a god (order. complexity, are the usual ones).
What is NOT "counter-intuitive" about a claim of complex intelligent beings comprised entirely of material matter and processes that we know exist - just because we ARE them? You want to own the unexplained origin and existence of reality but deny it to God AS IF that makes sense. The silly Creator/No Creator infinite regress nonsense is intellectual pornography.
And it ought not to be our job. The authorities, temporal and religious ought to be doing it themselves. And they do if the law is actually broken. The legal side does - never the religious side. It's all a cover -up. Because a finger pointed at one religious group can be pointed at another.
But it should not be our job. At best countering this irrelevant claim that we need religion, true or not because it does so much good. We are obliged to counter this claim, even though it is irrelevant to whether it's true or not.
If those who job it is to protect society from scammers and exploiters did it and did not wink at religious privilege, we would not have to do it.
Absolute nonsense. How can you claim to have proof when you MUST admit "We do NOT Know" whether or not there is a God? There is insufficient reason to dismiss God given the undeniable (and unknown) attributes of the reality responsible for our existence. But there is sufficient reason to dismiss tooth fairies or what not.
Would those be the same reasons you use to dismiss the hundreds of thousands of gods said to exist by other religions, now and in the past?
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, but that's not 'Religion', that what Men do. "Religion" is anything that looks nice. Cherry -picking the Bible and cafeteria -Christianity go hand in hand. And there is an odd quirk in this business of discarding 'Not real Christians' and the things they do that don't look so good - but there is still an element of cover -up: 'Look on the positive side, don't touch these people. Let them get away with it.' They are part of the cover -up all right.
