Religion vs. Atheism Thread

[Duff McGee]

Come on, man,  Slow down for a second and take a breath.  Take notice of the fact that there isn't a single person here arguing alongside you (a fallacy in itself - yes I recognize that - but it is telling nonetheless) yet there are Muslims, Christians, Agnostics, even some other Atheists perhaps, and perhaps some others, pretty much in complete harmony, disagreeing with you. Do you honestly think that you are that much smarter than ALL of us??

That's the hilarious thing about all of this. Wrong about what?! What claim have I made. Lol. This is the problem I was talking about. I never even got to make a claim bc we never even got past first base. We couldn't even talk about anything bc a few posters just assumed I was making a claim and went commando on me. We haven't even gotten into any meat yet. That's why I realized it is futile. Call it arrogance or whatever you want but I can't have a conversation with people when we have a few posters putting words in my mouth, inferring my "true intentions" and then throwing out fallacy after fallacy condemning me when I ha want actually even made a claim yet. It's a madhouse bizarro world in here. And edit before anyone loses their shit: I guess I did make a claim that many historians are questioning Christ's actual existence. I had a response but everyone piled on so quickly that I couldn't even delve into it.

[Golfingdad]

That's the hilarious thing about all of this. Wrong about what?! What claim have I made. Lol.

This is kind of telling.  "Wrong about what?" is clearly meant to be a response to where I called you wrong in my post.  Care to point that out for me?  It's telling because it leads me to believe that you're not actually reading what's being written.  Why would you think I said you were wrong otherwise?  Additionally, where in my post did I state that you "made a claim?"

I said nobody else is arguing alongside you.  Whether or not you're right or wrong, or made a claim, you are CERTAINLY making arguments.  I sense you're taking pride in being alone here because you think you're the only enlightened one (throwing out blanket statements directed at nobody and everybody about cognitive dissonance and "group think") but it isn't flattering.

@newtogolf made the right move.

[mmoan2]

Ok, after a few very long conversations and a few pm messages I was reminded of what it was like when I was a very, very devout theist. God was my entire world.

Theists believe questions are attacks and even though they venture onto a thread like this of their own accord, feel the need to attack and scold atheists for being rude and disrespectful.

I had wondered why many of the atheists on here have chosen to stay out of the thread. Now I know. They explained it to me and I agree with them.

To have a debate, people have to understand logic and the simple concepts of what debate actually is. While many of the theists on here may be intelligent, it doesn't mean they aren't ignorant. Up until a year ago I lived with similar ignorance though I had achieved much intellectually in other areas of my life.

The reason for this is confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance. I guess what I didn't get is that merely (and politely) asking for one piece of evidence would be taken as a great attack against religion. I have now learned something and that is at least somewhat valuable for the future.

You have been rude and disrespectful. You've said several times that all of the theists in this thread are guilty of cognitive dissonance, don't understand the basic laws of logic, one guy is the spokesman for the Dunning Kruger Effect, etc. Maybe not as bad as "your mother is a snowblower," but don't tell me they're not personal attacks.

The evidence you seek isn't possible because religious thought is the antithesis of scientific thought. No one is going to wow you here with proof that Jonah slept in the belly of a whale for 3 days or that Jesus turned a few loaves of bread into a feast for 5000 people. Or that Mohammed saw a vision of Allah in a cave, or that I spoke to a crocodile yesterday and it told me God is a grasshopper. Faith in a "higher being" is a leap past logic. What Soren Kierkegaard called belief in the absurd. For all that science can declare about mechanical laws, it cannot describe love, metaphysical phenomenology, infinite regress, etc. What's the smallest particle? An electron? A quark? An energy string? What's the basis of matter? Even though a scientist can describe how the circulatory system in a snake works, he/she cannot answer WHY it does work. This vessel moves blood through here, with oxygen and nutrients accelerating the cellular renewal process, etc. Why does this process work? I don't know, it just does. Just as theists would say about God. He/she/it just is.

Check out Wittgenstein, I'm telling you. It'll blow you're friggin mind.

[rkim291968]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duff McGee

It's funny. I knew I wouldn't have to go back and show all the ad homs that have been aimed at me bc this guy would come in with more of his normal blather. Newtogolf is the current spokesman for the Dunning Kruger Effect.

I guarantee that a very big portion of the priests' responses that we were supposed to hear about had to do with this guy. It's interesting that the one claiming others are arrogant has hit me as the most arrogant and uninformed poster on this entire site over and over again, thread after thread.

No need to worry about me any longer Duff, this is my last post in the thread.  Life is too short, one day you'll realize that.

Can I welcome you back to the Trump thread?   We just had a 2nd debate and there is so much to cover.   That thread is not the same without you .

[JonMA1]

Jesus was walking down a road one day when he came upon a mob getting ready to stone a woman to death. He stepped in front the woman and asked "Why are you doing this? What did this poor woman do to deserve to be killed". "She sinned. She's a ***** and an adulteress" replied one man and the mob yelled angrily in support.

"She is a child of God" returned Jesus. "He who is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone". The members of the mob reflected on this for moment, and one by one, sheepishly started to drop the stones they were holding to the ground. but then, an old woman emerged from the crowd and walking towards the woman, lifted a giant boulder and threw it onto the woman killing her instantly.

Jesus could only shook his head in sadness. He looked at the dead woman, then back at the old woman who had thrown the stone and said "You know Mom, sometimes you really piss me off!"

(Most of people I know who are Christian like this joke. It wasn't meant to offend.)

The moral of the story as it applied to this thread... People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, it's not nice to kick someone when they're down, be careful what you ask for you might just get it, and why the $ @^! would I thin k a thread named "Religion vs Atheism" could remain civil.

To most of the people on either side of the topic, you should be commended for your restraint - same for the forum leaders who tried to keep it civil. There were some really good points made by some of you.

Some subjects are fine to debate, this isn't one of them. Had the thread been less of a debate and more of conversation, it would have been interesting and probably enlightening. Oh well.

As I was finishing this up, I just read @mmoan2 post above. The second paragraph is excellent.

[Duff McGee]

I'm not trying to start up discussions again, but maybe this will help better explain what I was talking about. Atheism, agnosticism, and theism aren't cut and dried like many people just assume. Most atheists are agnostics. Like I said earlier, when most people think of atheists, they are only thinking of anti-theists. I would rate myself a 6. Urban dictionary: agnostic atheist A person who holds the view that the existence of a deity cannot be proven nor disproven, but personally leans towards the idea of there not being one. In this case, agnostic is an adjective. "Atheist" has to do with belief, and "agnostic" has to do with knowledge. Two completely different animals, but can be applied to each other. Basically, a person who doesn't know and doesn't believe. Guy: So what are your religious views? Agnostic atheist: I'm an agnostic. Guy: So you're just a ***** atheist? Agnostic atheist: No, you idiot. I'm an atheist, too. I'm an atheistic agnostic, or an agnostic atheist. Guy: Huh??

[Vinsk]

I just want to ask this question.  Is atheism not a religion in and of itself?  It seems to me that there is a lot of trust in man's understanding above all else if science is the be all and end all.  Now if you want to say that we can't know for sure, that's one thing. But if you want to say there is no god, I don't think you can prove that either.

It's amazing how "believers" completely disregard how ignorant that statement is. I seriously doubt you believe in Zeus. So, prove there is no Zeus. Prove there is no Xenu. Hell, prove there is no Bigfoot. Prove there are no aliens, or UFO's. Disproving is not the matter at hand. Asking someone to disprove something you CAN'T PROVE is childlike at best.

[turtleback]

You're provoking another poster into a retaliatory response. It added nothing to the thread and was intended to get an equal or greater response. My post is a reminder to all, including you, to stick to the subject and behave like the mature adults you all think you are.

No, I am encapsulating what has happened.  He came here under the guise of a reasonable guy and in at least three (and I guess it was at least 4 because he was involved in some spousal thread I never read) threads he provoked a debate and then after proclaiming his skills as both a lawyer and debator he proceeded to alienate a good portion of the board with his ridiculous "debating" and "logic" skills, mixed in with a hyper dose of arrogance. And in each case, atfer that alienating he raps himself i the mantle of victimhood.

I was joking with the meme. I thought that would be pretty obvious....

And to @14ledo81:

Thanks for your great analysis of what my "true intentions were."

Also, and VERY MUCH to the contrary, I did not underestimate anyone. In fact, the opposite is the reason for the recent madness.

I actually highly OVERESTIMATED the theists on here, unfortunately.

Ha, ha.  Keep teing yourself that the world is an ignorant place and it is your purpose in life to enlighten us all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by boogielicious

You're provoking another poster into a retaliatory response. It added nothing to the thread and was intended to get an equal or greater response. My post is a reminder to all, including you, to stick to the subject and behave like the mature adults you all think you are.

Right, please keep it civl guys.

OK, but given the last three threads this has happened in it is kind of silly to accuse me of provoking anything.  Responding to provocation, perhaps.  Being snarky, sure.

Ok, after a few very long conversations and a few pm messages I was reminded of what it was like when I was a very, very devout theist. God was my entire world.

Theists believe questions are attacks and even though they venture onto a thread like this of their own accord, feel the need to attack and scold atheists for being rude and disrespectful.

I had wondered why many of the atheists on here have chosen to stay out of the thread. Now I know. They explained it to me and I agree with them.

To have a debate, people have to understand logic and the simple concepts of what debate actually is. While many of the theists on here may be intelligent, it doesn't mean they aren't ignorant. Up until a year ago I lived with similar ignorance though I had achieved much intellectually in other areas of my life.

The reason for this is confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance. I guess what I didn't get is that merely (and politely) asking for one piece of evidence would be taken as a great attack against religion. I have now learned something and that is at least somewhat valuable for the future.

Oh, geeze, the zeal of the reformed smoker.

Yet another way to call the people who disagree with you stupid.

When someone has tried to beat the crap out of you, a "polite" question takes on a different meaning   Given your history here can you really wonder that people do not think you debate in any kind of good faith?

I does explain a lot though.  We have the same problem with baby Christians who, in the zeal of their new faith, want to go out and witness to the world, but the fragility of a new faith combined with a lack of understanding of human nature makes them terrible witnesses.

[phillyk]

A circulatory system works because it must.  ATP is the basic energy source for most life forms and once attached promotes a change in formation of proteins which will allow oxygen or whatever to pass through membranes or other "stuff".  Once that happens, ADP is released and the protein goes back to an inactive state.  Why does that happen? Evolution.  A circulatory system wasn't always that way, nature built it over millions and millions of years.  It probably is still changing, but no one will ever witness its next stage.  As life progress, nature is constantly trying to find ways to make living easier.  Looking at the 3D structure of proteins and DNA and everything is simply amazing!! The complexity is beautiful!! The real question is how it(life) all started? Where is the beginning to all the processes?  I don't know, but what I do know is that saying a God did it doesn't make it any better for me.  Call me arrogant, but I want a real answer!  That is why I love science and theoretical physics, because even though there are many things science can NOT yet have an answer for, we are at least TRYING to understand and find an answer.  That is how we move forward, by trying.

[Golfingdad]

It's amazing how "believers" completely disregard how ignorant that statement is. I seriously doubt you believe in Zeus. So, prove there is no Zeus. Prove there is no Xenu. Hell, prove there is no Bigfoot. Prove there are no aliens, or UFO's. Disproving is not the matter at hand. Asking someone to disprove something you CAN'T PROVE is childlike at best.

But recognize this in context of this thread. He's not the one being childlike, he's just responding to the (one could say childlike) arguments of the op which pretty much boil down to "God doesn't exist because you can't prove he does." In that regard, I think westcydes argument has validity. "You can't prove your claim any more than I can prove mine."

[turtleback]

A circulatory system works because it must.  ATP is the basic energy source for most life forms and once attached promotes a change in formation of proteins which will allow oxygen or whatever to pass through membranes or other "stuff".  Once that happens, ADP is released and the protein goes back to an inactive state.  Why does that happen? Evolution.  A circulatory system wasn't always that way, nature built it over millions and millions of years.  It probably is still changing, but no one will ever witness its next stage.  As life progress, nature is constantly trying to find ways to make living easier.  Looking at the 3D structure of proteins and DNA and everything is simply amazing!! The complexity is beautiful!! The real question is how it(life) all started? Where is the beginning to all the processes?  I don't know, but what I do know is that saying a God did it doesn't make it any better for me.  Call me arrogant, but I want a real answer!  That is why I love science and theoretical physics, because even though there are many things science can NOT yet have an answer for, we are at least TRYING to understand and find an answer.  That is how we move forward, by trying.

It is not an unreasonable position.  Science is far better at the small questions of what happens as compared to the big questions like how or why something happens.  Like nothing becoming everything.  It is better at incremental practicalities than philosophies.  It is great within its own realm, but it simply does not have the tools to deal with anything outside of the material world.

So just be aware of the underlying assumption (really more of a limitation) that all that exists is the material.   Even if one could "prove" God does not exist, all that would do is prove that he could not exist in our 3 (or 4, if we count time) dimensional universe.  Just as a cone cannot exist within the constraints of flatland .  Yet it still exists.  And just as a cone can project an image onto the 2 dimensions of flatland, it is reasonable to believe that a God whose existence almost by definition must be a higher dimensional construct, can make himself know in our 3 dimensional environment.  And just as the flatlanders cannot even begin to imagine the true nature of a cone, so we would be completely unable to imagine the true nature of God.

Finally, what if the real answer IS that God did it?  Amazingly enough, that does not limit science in any way from continuing to find answers within its own realm, most of whose practitioners, historically, have been people who did believe in God.

[Duff McGee]

But recognize this in context of this thread. He's not the one being childlike, he's just responding to the (one could say childlike) arguments of the op which pretty much boil down to "God doesn't exist because you can't prove he does." In that regard, I think westcydes argument has validity. "You can't prove your claim any more than I can prove mine."

O.k., perhaps the reason all theists think they somehow one upped me is because I've been treating the conversation with kids gloves. For the last time, I don't have any claim to prove. If you all are that ignorant about the rules of debate and the rules of logic, there's nothing I can do. But I'm going to stop letting everyone imply that theists somehow "won" with their ridiculous God of the gaps bull shit and childlike views of the existence. The propositions are not equal. One has evidence, one has as much evidence as Bigfoot. All I asked is for a tiny bit of evidence for your beliefs. Ranting and raving and claiming I am stupid does nothing to strengthen your claim. I never made a claim. All I asked for is evidence. This is so basic that I've had enough of trying to be polite. If you guys can't grasp this third grade level logic and reasoning then have fun living in your state of delusion. Read up on the basics of you guys want to have a conversation with the grown ups. And no this was not directed at golfingdad specifically, but everyone else that have tried straw manning my arguments to death. Rattle the cage long enough and the politeness I have shown goes out the window. The reason it appears you guys are "winning" (even though all I did was ask a question) is because you guys sound so ridiculous and illogical that most atheists avoid these discussions like the plague.

[Vinsk]

But recognize this in context of this thread. He's not the one being childlike, he's just responding to the (one could say childlike) arguments of the op which pretty much boil down to "God doesn't exist because you can't prove he does." In that regard, I think westcydes argument has validity. "You can't prove your claim any more than I can prove mine."

No. Completely illogical and lacking any rationalization. "I believe goblins are stealing my socks at night" I don't believe in goblins, it must be some other reason, perhaps stuck in the vents, never were placed in there, or maybe you just misplaced them. "Ha! The vents were empty...it must be goblins and I feel pity for you not believing in goblins" Yeah...great argument. Whose the foolish one here?

[Lihu]

[quote name="Golfingdad" url="/t/84478/religion-vs-atheism-thread/100_100#post_1201808"] But recognize this in context of this thread. He's not the one being childlike, he's just responding to the (one could say childlike) arguments of the op which pretty much boil down to "God doesn't exist because you can't prove he does." In that regard, I think westcydes argument has validity. "You can't prove your claim any more than I can prove mine."

No. Completely illogical and lacking any rationalization. "I believe goblins are stealing my socks at night" I don't believe in goblins, it must be some other reason, perhaps stuck in the vents, never were placed in there, or maybe you just misplaced them. "Ha! The vents were empty...it must be goblins and I feel pity for you not believing in goblins" Yeah...great argument. Whose the foolish one here?[/quote] Well, if you really believe in "Goblins", I can't stop you nor even if you believe in "Flying Spaghetti Monsters" either. I'll respect your decision. Although, I am curious regarding why Golblins and not some other type of creature?

[mvmac]

@Duff McGee and @Vinsk , let's cool it with the inflammatory posts please.

[turtleback]

O.k., perhaps the reason all theists think they somehow one upped me is because I've been treating the conversation with kids gloves.

For the last time, I don't have any claim to prove. If you all are that ignorant about the rules of debate and the rules of logic, there's nothing I can do. But I'm going to stop letting everyone imply that theists somehow "won" with their ridiculous God of the gaps bull shit and childlike views of the existence.

The propositions are not equal. One has evidence, one has as much evidence as Bigfoot.

All I asked is for a tiny bit of evidence for your beliefs.

Ranting and raving and claiming I am stupid does nothing to strengthen your claim. I never made a claim. All I asked for is evidence.

This is so basic that I've had enough of trying to be polite. If you guys can't grasp this third grade level logic and reasoning then have fun living in your state of delusion.

Read up on the basics of you guys want to have a conversation with the grown ups.

And no this was not directed at golfingdad specifically, but everyone else that have tried straw manning my arguments to death. Rattle the cage long enough and the politeness I have shown goes out the window.

The reason it appears you guys are "winning" (even though all I did was ask a question) is because you guys sound so ridiculous and illogical that most atheists avoid these discussions like the plague.

Great.  Declare victory.  Good job.

I do apologize, however, for not recognizing your particular brand of being polite.  Somehow I managed to confuse it with being a jerk.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

But recognize this in context of this thread. He's not the one being childlike, he's just responding to the (one could say childlike) arguments of the op which pretty much boil down to "God doesn't exist because you can't prove he does."

In that regard, I think westcydes argument has validity.

"You can't prove your claim any more than I can prove mine."

No. Completely illogical and lacking any rationalization.

"I believe goblins are stealing my socks at night"

I don't believe in goblins, it must be some other reason, perhaps stuck in the vents, never were placed in there, or maybe you just misplaced them.

"Ha! The vents were empty...it must be goblins and I feel pity for you not believing in goblins"

Yeah...great argument. Whose the foolish one here?

Probably the ones who thought that anyone made that argument - or anything like it.

So far what I see is "on the assumption that God doesn't exist I will prove that God doesn't exist".

Great argument.  Whose the foolish one here?

Wow, I like this,  I get to make up what my opponents argument is and then squash it by calling it foolish.  Wow, I wish I had learned this brand of logic long ago.  Look at how many argument I would have thought that I had won.  LOL

[Duff McGee]

@Duff McGee and @Vinsk , let's cool it with the inflammatory posts please.

[quote name="Vinsk" url="/t/84478/religion-vs-atheism-thread/180#post_1201834"] No. Completely illogical and lacking any rationalization. "I believe goblins are stealing my socks at night" I don't believe in goblins, it must be some other reason, perhaps stuck in the vents, never were placed in there, or maybe you just misplaced them. "Ha! The vents were empty...it must be goblins and I feel pity for you not believing in goblins" Yeah...great argument. Whose the foolish one here?[/quote] Just end the thread then at this point. Almost every response to me has been inflammatory and insulting and I've tried to be very civil. I'm sick of everyone congratulating themselves about somehow beating me when I never even made an argument. Then all these insults about how I'm an attorney yet don't know how to argue and all that. I have a right to defend myself. It's strange that all the atheists that have chimed in through both threads have been more inciting than any of my posts yet mine are the ones being bombarded. I've had enough. If they really want to "debate" and they actually want me to go on the attack instead of just asking questions then they have finally succeeded. I would probably take this thread down if I was an admin.

[Golfingdad]

Just end the thread then at this point. Almost every response to me has been inflammatory and insulting and I've tried to be very civil. I'm sick of everyone congratulating themselves about somehow beating me when I never even made an argument.

Then all these insults about how I'm an attorney yet don't know how to argue and all that. I have a right to defend myself.

It's strange that all the atheists that have chimed in through both threads have been more inciting than any of my posts yet mine are the ones being bombarded.

I've had enough. If they really want to "debate" and they actually want me to go on the attack instead of just asking questions then they have finally succeeded.

I would probably take this thread down if I was an admin.

Is there an angle you haven't tried to play in this thread?  Now, we're going with the "victim card?"