I will now prove atheists are illogical!

At some point someone will be born, who will have a eureka moment that will produce this 3rd option.

Unless believe humanity has already reached the height of progress. in which case it is all downhill from here.

 

But binary thinking is the last refuge of the simple minded, hence the reason the GOP use it so often.

God forbid one of those pesky progressives invents a system based on lets say 16 digits.... lets call it "Hexidecimal" for the sake of argument

 

Dude you are going to give yourself an aneurism....
You proved nothing but your own ignorance.

 

Oh, so how do you explain all the documented cases of answered prayers? By ignoring them?

THere would have been three.

 

In other words you rely on nothing but your own opinion. Do you understand now why atheism is considered self worship? No science, half hearted atheism that nevertheless drives him to think that everyone but he is wrong (and if you disagree you are a troll), and a mysterious third option that is never spelled out so he can never be wrong.

That is one hell of a position to have.

 

A challenge for you.

Write a post without the word 'atheism'

 

Well, what would you call that kind of silly debauchery? I call it atheism. You are apparently proud of it?

YOU apparently can crap all over everyone else's faith, but, someone critcises you? And like atheists, there is a cosmic conspiracy of bigotry out to get you.

What do you expect when you reject BOTH religion and science pine for a third option, yet undiscovered? You are smarter than every living human being ... you just haven't found a manner of ... even finding it yet?

Yep, its blatant bigotry to disagree with that moral perception

Poor baby.

 

You are Obsessed/Possessed with Atheism.

I fear for atheists in your area of the world, you might kidnap them for demonic rituals to purge them of ungodly ways.

 

Well, thanks for another mind reading accusation. Must be that GZ standard again?

Apparently, you are not allowed to disagree with GZ, or any other atheist, in a religion forum?

And of course, now we want to kill everyone because we find the rambling of atheism unsound?

Well, looks like Jedi's point is proven, atheists are indeed illogical.

So, atheists, is it now OK to simply attack people and use superfluous strawmen and call it arguementation? And when I do it back to you, will you remain magically logical while the identical behavior is called trolling?

Just curious ... of course, there must be a thrid option ... as yet undiscovered?

And the really funny part? He denies being arrogant, but changes his avatar to a 'Vanity' fair cover demanding that you kneel down before his ... undiscovered third option. I like the homoerotic men in the picture with him

 

What nonsense.

Theories are not irrational nor stupid. They are hypothesis that cannot yet be definitively proven. The theory is supported by observations and experimentation and the results of which are predictable. when new data is generated that does not fit the theory, then the theory is re-examined and refined or outright rejected.

Your understanding of science leaves a great deal to be desired.

 

I can't claim to be a Christian. The closest label I've found to my beliefs would be Deist. In the minds of Christians, I might as well be an atheist.

 

Superfluous strawmen such as the accusation that I (as an atheist) think it's OK to attack people? That kind?

 

Well, why are you taking it up with me rather than the atheists who are attacking people?

Apparently, it is OK? Its just not OK to take issue with it?

Why, once again, is it OK for atheists to criticize behavior and belief, but the reverse is somehow .... wrong?

You tell me Prof, what is the standard?

How are you proving that atheists do not tolerate this? That they are in fact logical rather than emotional?

 

I will ignore for a moment that all objective studies done on prayer have shown that it is a non factor. Even studies done by Religious institutions have admitted this.

If it were true that God answered some prayers and not others, that would expose your God as being malevolent. It is disgusting to think of all of the suffering an uncaring being could have stopped or prevented. Luckily for me, I don't have to. How do you square that by the by?

You seem to operate from the position that Atheists are attacking everyone else and faith is helpless. For thousands of years it has been just the opposite. We have seen what Religion and the Religious will do when left in charge, and it is horrifying. Genocide, rape, murder, incest, all justified at one time or another by men guided by religious conviction or in the very books they claim were divinely inspired. Thank GOD that Religion has had its claws clipped. The impotent state it exists in now is far more favorable.

So now onto your false victim hood. Since I have been lurking around here, I have yet to see anyone tell you that you cannot criticize. Science welcomes criticism, it is the only viable way to figure out what works and what doesn't. Religion abhors criticism, this is why it demands of its servants FAITH. Its claims do not stack up, it has hardly ever been right about anything ever, and it has been wrong more times than it should have if it were just guessing.

It is easy to see why you choose the role of the victim. It makes it so you can argue against your persecution instead of the arguments placed before you. Which is great, because their is no honest and convincing argument for the belief in a deity, let alone one that answers prayers and casts magic spells. It is a beautiful little zeitgeist you have going here, Neutral. What an inappropriate name.

 

Because you're the one making up strawmen about me. Perhaps it's selfish but I feel compelled to defend myself more than I feel compelled to defend every Christian who ever got criticised.

It isn't, and I never said it wasn't. Those would be the strawmen again. Each criticism should stands or fall on its own merits, regardless of who makes them. For example, your criticism of atheists such as myself was, I believe, untrue and therefore it IS wrong to make such a criticism. If however you were to say that SOME atheists are deeply hypocritical, I couldn't very well argue with that. But that isn't what you said.

I'm not trying to prove that. I'm just defending myself against your false accusations.

 

Except that this is not true. Prayer has been scientifically proven to have beneficial effects in the healing process.

And effects, and answered prayers? How exactly is millions of people having their prayers answered in often profound ways a non-factor? A non-factor in what?

Nope, I am operating from the base that rational discussions with literally hundreds of atheists are quickly derailed by emotional, personal accusations that have no bearing on the claims.

For example, of teh hundreds of atheists who have come stomping into this section claiming that rationalism drives their atheism, how many of them are actually able to prove that its science that leads unequivicably to atheism? It doesn't. And when I lay out the academics for them, the proof, the citations to back it up? THe rebuttal is continuously that these studies are 'anger' and that I am lying.

THat my freind is not science and logic, its people lashing out because they do not like being challenged.

Indeed, I write this calmly and without emotion, and I guarantee you that people will accuse this of being emotional? Why? Because I spell out clearly and bluntly that there are common behavioral issues when discussing religion with atheists?

Then explain to me why several atheists in this thread alone have simply refused to rebut the claims and science I presented them? Who indeed is acting like the victim?

Again, this is exactly what I see time and again - we are rational science minded people - you are awhiney victim who cannot take criticism. Indeed, our interaction started because you were offended that I say many atheists are highly emotional about this subject - well, they are.

What 'science' are you offering?

WHo is claiming the victim status?

And neutral means we apply standards equally. So, unlike the pleathora of atheists who run around screaming about how stupid everyone is, I don;t run to the mods unless the behavior crosses a very firm line and into the arena of abuse - the opposite cannot be said of the victims of atheism, not by a long shot. By why allow that objective criteria to influence that?

Indeed, you are doing nothing different than dozens upon dozens of atheists before you. You say science is your standard - but clearly based on no more knoweldge than me disliking atheist antics on this forum and being religious ... you have decided I am victim and delusional?

What a wonderful zeitgist to run around thinking everyone who disagrees with you doesn't understand science and is delusional.

Yep, you are different!

Lets see some of that science please, because all I dedect is another atheist shocked that someone would stand up to him. I would much rather deal with science rather than indignation, but the former is in short supply and the later is ... beyond abundant.

 

Ok, I won't be like them. Present your case. This is an open forum, I am intrigued to find out why you believe in God. Better yet, show me evidence for the existence of God. Leave all of the anecdotal bull and strawmen arguments at the door. I eagerly await.

Surely you understand that those that make claims must back them up.

 

Then before we start, you have to know what the basis is.

God cannot be proven or disproven to any certitude AT ALL. Science leads staright to agnosticism, and the best that be done in terms of pure science is preponderance. There are several cases that make the probability of Creator rather strong. None are conclusive.

Its why all religions have a requirement for faith.

The opposite however, is that atheists claim they do not use faith at all, and on that one, I disagree. I don;t disagree with the answer of atheism - I think its reasonable.

What I disagree with is twofold:

#1 - the dunciation of religion rather than just disagreement with it. One is silly, the other healthy.

#2 - The avoidance of actual ethics and morality by atheists. Ok, your atheism is reasonable - now what?

Its frustrating when there is an entire field of atheist philiosophy out there, and what we get are ... exactly what you claim to hate ... venial accusations of various 'ism, and how they are not deluded but we are .... which offers absolutely nothing of substance, or that is quite frankly even desirous in terms of human interaction and purpose.

The general trend is not respectful disagreement, but rather an zero sum game where the intent is to avoid being wrong at all costs.

 

Therein lies the rub. All believers in religion presuppose the existence of a deity and work their evidence from that supposition. A true atheist makes no such assumption. Your insistence that we cannot prove every facet of the BBT is in no way proof of anything but the need to gain more knowledge.

 

Only an agnostic makes no presumption - they are the ONLY ones who can claim to be objective. A true atheist is someone who is convinced that there is no God. All fine and dandy, but just like the theist, the evidence does not support that conclusive conclusion.

Again, that is OK. To acknowledge that is fine. Most atheists do not want to acknowledge that, they want the certainty of theism without the acknowledgement of faith. Its ultimately what I think prevents many atheists from really exploring what their faith actually means, why I routinely find that I know more about atheist philosophy then the vast majority of atheists.

Our knowledge has increased by orders of magnitude since the birth of Juddaism and the its spawned religions. Yet, even then, God said that knoweldge alone would not lead to God - but knowledge and faith would.

Here we are thousands of years after that prediction was made .... and its true.

 

If all 7 billion people on the planet flip a coin and pray that heads will show up you will have 3.5 billion answered prayers.

 

Yes, they will.

And it was such a simple one to answer.

Does every anwered prayer have to be cured cancer?

 

Nope. But consistency would offer credibility. If an action doesn't seem to alter the statistically expected outcome, it's hard to argue the action had any impact at all.

 

If only the claim itself were a scientific one to begin with ....

Here is an example of an answered prayer. After a particularly rough patch in my life, I found myself asking God what it was all for (and this was well after the fact mind you). Suddenly, and for just the briefest of moments I could see the unbroken chain from my initial appeal for help during that time, to what I had endured and how it effected far more people than just myself. It was an instant of pure clarity that happened just as I asked for just that.


How exactly do you test that scientifically?

 

I wouldn't try. If that seemed like a miracle to you... well, I'm glad it brought you some joy or peace of mind. I don't think it demonstrates anything, but I wouldn't try and take it away from you either.​