Calling all atheists

reply to post by ColeYounger


Well I understand when members are having serious discussions and somebody interjects with absolute idiocy.
For example a thread where perhaps people are having a reasonable online discussion about world events possibly relating to bible prophesy. Then somebody randomly posts don't waste your time with the magical pink spaghetti monster in the sky.
But it seems it's been less lately to me as the MODS seem to be removing those trolling comments more frequently.

A few even got banned and are no longer with us

Xtrozero


I really love that you used the word "realistic" when talking about aliens..... BTW they are not my crew but I would bet that the evidence is the same....

I did that on purpose because that's the point. So you don't believe in either crew?

I would loved to see some of these points about science/atheist in the thread i started yesterday but none showed up

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I would like atheist to understand for scientist not having proof of something is not definite proof of the non existence of the event.

Not believing in god is the same as believing as both require faith.

Indigent
Not believing in god is the same as believing as both require faith.

Really?

Does it really require faith not to believe into God, or it is rather absence of the faith (and God as well)?

Question for you: does believing or disbelieving in Alien visiting earth require faith? Interestingly, some people see faith everywhere, all I see is some logic and rational thinking.

reply to post by SuperFrog


yes i meant knowing he doesn't exist

---------

which is what an atheist do, otherwise would be agnostic as i phrase it

if you know he doesn't exist without having evidence is to have faith

Faith is subjective confidence or trust in a person, thing, deity, or in the doctrines or teachings of a religion, or view (e.g. having strong political faith) without empirical evidence

i'm sorry if my ideas are not entirely clear but english is a foreign language for me


------------

About aliens, if you think there is evidence its not faith, if you don't care about the existence or not of evidence and believe nonetheless its faith.

As i don't have evidence i don't bother to even question if they are real but of course i see each presented shaky video with an open mind and hope the underdog is right as in any good movie

Indigent
reply to post by SuperFrog

 

yes i meant knowing he doesn't exist

---------

which is what an atheist do, otherwise would be agnostic as i phrase it

if you know he doesn't exist without having evidence is to have faith

Faith is subjective confidence or trust in a person, thing, deity, or in the doctrines or teachings of a religion, or view (e.g. having strong political faith) without empirical evidence

i'm sorry if my ideas are not entirely clear but english is a foreign language for me

English is second language for me (or should I say third ), you are doing just fine.

I believe you just misunderstood your definition as well you are mixing 'evidence of absence' and 'absence of evidence'.

reply to post by Lice00

No, i didn't say it was okay for them to do it, nice strawman. But yeah, its the same as any hate group.

So what exactly is it that anti-theists are doing that's not okay? Since you are okay with atheists but not anti-theists, it seems to me what you're driving at is that they should keep it to themselves. Is this right? This isn't another 'strawman', I am again asking a genuine question.

So you have atheists who don't believe in god and anti-theists who are really no better than the white trash neo-nazis and just as retarded as evangelical christian preachers.

The irony here is how much hostility and disdain you seem to have towards anti-theists.

reply to post by SuperFrog


oh i am a hillbilly i wont discus fancy concepts out of my reach with you people so to be perfectly clear to believe something is real or not without evidence is to have faith.

reply to post by ColeYounger

I mean no offense by this, but you self-proclaimed scientific minded atheists seem to have this never ending knee-jerk reaction that when someone like me says "God" or "creator", that I'm talking about an old guy with a beard sitting up on a cloud. I'm talking about a supreme intelligence that is behind what we call 'science'. This intelligence is what's causing your heart to beat right now.

And I'm talking about using that to establish a code of morality which reflects values potentially hazardous for the human species. Subjugation, exclusivity of truth, perpetual servitude, etc.

reply to post by TruthLover557

I think a "true Christian" knows what the Bible says and seeks to follow it accordingly.

I don't believe in denominations and the Bible doesn't establish denominations.

That's fine, and perhaps reflective of the Bible, but these denominations exist nonetheless and inherent to that is a mountain of disagreement on what 'true Christianity' looks like.

Earlier you said they were not 'true Christians', yet they read the Bible and how do you know they are not seeking to follow it accordingly? On what basis did you determine that other than the fact it doesn't match your interpretation of scripture. On what basis is another Christian determining you are not a "true Christian", since you also read the Bible and seek to follow it? They do so, again, because it doesn't match their [or their churches] interpretation of scripture.

So… none of you really have a solid case you're right about who is 'true' other than faith in the idea.

Sure, atheists have a right to their opinions, but I think their arguments are pointless when it is apparent they have no knowledge of what the Bible says.

A high percentage of atheists are ex-religious. Additionally, you might be surprised how knowledgeable some atheists are in these matters.

Now to extend what you wrote. You no doubt dismiss other religions as Truth, right? Like do you believe the Vedas are the inspired word of godS? I imagine you do not. Have you read the Vedas entirely? Since you're saying atheists should have read the Bible in order to have a case against your faith, I see no reason Christians wouldn't also have the responsibility of reading the holy literature of every religion they dismiss as false.

reply to post by Indigent


By that logic, you should be an avid believer in Santa Claus and the tooth fairy, along with unicorns, leprechauns, wizards and brownies. Where's your belief in those?

reply to post by Bone75

Or maybe I just have a bad habit of selective comprehension (which could very well be the case considering your assertion that I'm spewing obvious nonsense).

it would be very helpful if you could at least provide me with a thread to read where this absurd behavior can be found.

How about this very thread. Where a Christian couldn't be happier with the prospect of personally sending atheists to Hell for eternal torture by the train load. Missed it or is it the selective comprehension you admitted you might suffer from? Honestly if you didn't see it in this thread then I see little point in linking you others. How about you just follow me around. I find those threads all the time.

reply to post by AfterInfinity

By that logic, you should be an avid believer in Santa Claus and the tooth fairy, along with unicorns, leprechauns, wizards and brownies. Where's your belief in those?

Expand your mind

Agnosticism

Scientific method

you are so cool, did i said at any point i believe in god?

what that logic means is anything without evidence is a theory. is some theory better than other just because sounds better to you? or one is better because it adapts better to the evidence? in any case there is a key word you don't seem to get in that logic as you call it

Indigent
reply to post by SuperFrog

 

oh i am a hillbilly i wont discus fancy concepts out of my reach with you people so to be perfectly clear to believe something is real or not without evidence is to have faith.

No, it is not. It does not require faith to know that something for witch there is no single piece of evidence does not really exist. Same goes for already mentioned tooth fairy, unicorns, all other fairies, hobbits, elves, ... I surely hope that it does not require faith and belief for you to know that those things do not exist.

This whole rant is product of my often use of comedian to express some of views, and here is another one, but to the point:



For me it is just opinion that some folks have to grow up. I also hope you don't believe in Santa Claus, even you did as child. Does it require faith for you not to believe in it?

Again, please read more about absence of evidence and evidence of absence.

ps. Sorry, wrong video - updated.

reply to post by Indigent


Do you have conclusive evidence that all those creatures I mentioned aren't real?

reply to post by AfterInfinity

from a scientific point of view i cannot say they aren't real, is that so hard to understand?

Indigent
what that logic means is anything without evidence is a theory. is some theory better than other just because sounds better to you? or one is better because it adapts better to the evidence? in any case there is a key word you don't seem to get in that logic as you call it

Here is interesting description what word 'theory' means in English:

* an idea or set of ideas that is intended to explain facts or events

* an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true

* the general principles or ideas that relate to a particular subject

Where do you see absence of evidence fit into theory?

And for science, theory has a bit different meaning as well. ( dictionary.reference.com... )

reply to post by SuperFrog


i wish you explain how your quotes goes against anything i'm saying

an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true

what i said

what that logic means is anything without evidence is a theory

to believe something is real or not without evidence is to have faith

ColeYounger

Today's out-there theory can be tomorrow's accepted fact.
Scientists have inferred for a long, long time that one can find many clues that may at least suggest an intelligent design. There are biologists who, after studying an organism intricately will tell you it simply could not have just 'evolved', or 'happened'.

Yes, and there are scientists who study the exact same organisms that have a perfectly acceptable answer called evolution that are light years ahead of religion when it comes to verifyable or plausible evidence to support the claim. Just because a biologist who can't definitively answer their query as to how something came to be does not mean that it has to be "intelligent design." The problem with your religion-based theory is that it's not "today's out-there theory"--it is a millenia-old theory that continues to have more and more holes poked in it as intelligence progresses. Your argument is 6,000 b.c.e.'s accepted "fact," not tomorrow's.

ColeYounger

I mean no offense by this, but you self-proclaimed scientific minded atheists seem to have this never ending knee-jerk reaction ...

I mean no offense by this, but if you had paid attention to my previous response, you'd hopefully comprehend that my stance is not a "knee-jerk reaction." But, if it makes you feel better, pretend that it is so that, in your mind, you can consider me ignorant (but that won't make your argument any more valid in reality). Like I said before, I don't care what you believe as long as it doesn't directly affect me; implying that I'm ignorant and don't think things through affects me, so you're starting to become like the atheists against whom you were ranting in your original post.

Just sayin'.

ColeYounger

I never claimed what you're inferring.

I know...you inferred what I claimed.

ColeYounger

You obviously didn't understand my reference. I said I fully understand why some people are atheists, because to doubt is simply human nature. I said that Thomas the doubter was actually the one who was shown the truth. Up close and personal.

No no...I understood perfectly, but your point falls short of having any weight because...well...you could have said that a unicorn was shown the eye of Horus as proof. In my opinion (and I promise it's not a knee-jerk response), each would be as factually based as the other.

In my experience, it's easier to just believe in a god or religion (at least superficially, like most Americans do) because most are groomed from before they could talk to believe in an existence of some sort of god. It's much harder to do one's own research, take a hard look at what exactly is being said in the book(s) that they're supposed to believe is infallible, and come to a conclusion that reason and logic and, yes, scientific thought and proof, are being asked to be set aside in order to worship something that may or may not be there...and to give money to it...and devote time and energy to it...and to fear it...and all the other fun that comes along with being told what to do or else you'll rot in some hellish place for eternity.

Why do you think children generally just believe what they're told instead of doubting everything? It's human nature to trust and believe (thanks, oxytocin!), and quite honestly, it's not fun when we discover for ourselves that we've been lied to concerning religion or "god" or a supernatural intelligence. Doubt only exists in humans once humans gain the ability to be logical and learn from experiences. So, pretend all you want that atheism is easier than religion, but I'll tell you what, atheists like me who have come to disbelieve through a long journey of research and constructive criticism concerning religion are quite confident that religion is a lie originally created as a means of controlling a populace and to answer the unknown (like, how is lightning created, or what makes the sun move across the sky, or what happens when I die, or...).

I try hard to stay out of these debates, and so, I am leaving this one. Enjoy your beliefs, and I'll enjoy my lack of, and we'll both continue living like we never even discussed this.

Best Regards.

Indigent
i wish you explain how your quotes goes against anything i'm saying

It has to be observable to be theory, something that can be verified as either true or false. Inability to verify and further study simply means it can't be theory, especially not scientific theory.

Indigent
what that logic means is anything without evidence is a theory

No, that is not logic. We don't have theory of Santa Claus existence, or everything else already mentioned here. You would have to have something observable to make it into theory, even something that is invisible for human eye, for example gravity - so we have theory of gravity, or theory of evolution, but there is no theory of ID or theory of God existence, or for that matter theory of his non-existence.

Indigent
to believe something is real or not without evidence is to have faith

And again no, to believe something is real without evidence is faith. Disbelief does not require faith.