Why I'm an Atheist

[Arm0r]

You can't think of any more constructive way of refuting my arguments so you resort to personal attacks. Nice.

Like I said before - classic schoolyard bully tactic.

You contradict yourself over and over, you have no arguments.  You refute your own arguments, no need for anyone else to help--you'll just contradict yourself again eventually and that'll be over (of course once you do, you'll act like you didn't).   You act stupid you get called stupid, deal with it.

[quadz]

god isn't some magical idea, it's not going to go away when you don't teach kids about it

The deist sense of god probably would not go away.

The magical idea of Yahweh absolutely would, just like all the rest.

[Tubby]

You can't think of any more constructive way of refuting my arguments so you resort to personal attacks. Nice.

Like I said before - classic schoolyard bully tactic.

You contradict yourself over and over, you have no arguments.  You refute your own arguments, no need for anyone else to help--you'll just contradict yourself again eventually and that'll be over (of course once you do, you'll act like you didn't).   You act stupid you get called stupid, deal with it.

Okay, but I'm still not getting a workable argument / debate here: Just more personal attacks.

If you have something to say on the topic at hand (atheism vs. religous belief), let's hear it and debate it. Otherwise shut the fuck up.

[reaper]

Yahweh is god, sorry not going anywhere.

[Arm0r]

You can't think of any more constructive way of refuting my arguments so you resort to personal attacks. Nice.

Like I said before - classic schoolyard bully tactic.

You contradict yourself over and over, you have no arguments.  You refute your own arguments, no need for anyone else to help--you'll just contradict yourself again eventually and that'll be over (of course once you do, you'll act like you didn't).   You act stupid you get called stupid, deal with it.

Okay, but I'm still not getting a workable argument / debate here: Just more personal attacks.

If you have something to say on the topic at hand (atheism vs. religous belief), let's hear it and debate it. Otherwise shut the fuck up.

.......you contradict yourself over and over then cry about YOU not getting a workable argument? ROFL.   YOU have nothing worth hearing on such an argument, you've already proved that.   You would offer up our own horribly put together arguments as a viable argument while contradicting yourself the whole way through, want some free advice?   Go to page one and read it through, you look foolish, no level of ignoring it will change it.

[Tubby]

Nice job trolling, I guess.

Same conclusion I have drawn about this guy.

I figure, what are the options at this point?

1. Completely off-the-charts obstinate passive-aggressive narcissist who claims to value science while demonstrating an utter lack of regard for the scientific

2. Trolling for lulz

3. (?)


:shrug:

So what if I do have an 'utter disregard for the scientific', Quadz? Maybe that's no less pretentious than having an utter disregard for the religous.

Maybe there's more of a connection between science and religon than you would like to admit.

Btw, I haven't yet heard you respond to my post #173. It was posted directly to you, Quadz, and I'm looking forward to a reply.

[Tubby]

You can't think of any more constructive way of refuting my arguments so you resort to personal attacks. Nice.

Like I said before - classic schoolyard bully tactic.

You contradict yourself over and over, you have no arguments.  You refute your own arguments, no need for anyone else to help--you'll just contradict yourself again eventually and that'll be over (of course once you do, you'll act like you didn't).   You act stupid you get called stupid, deal with it.

I have no arguments? Okay, so why is this thread currently 13 pages long?

And as for 'contradiction', please refer yourself to the nearest available copy of the Holy Bible (any edition).

[Arm0r]

You can't think of any more constructive way of refuting my arguments so you resort to personal attacks. Nice.

Like I said before - classic schoolyard bully tactic.

You contradict yourself over and over, you have no arguments.  You refute your own arguments, no need for anyone else to help--you'll just contradict yourself again eventually and that'll be over (of course once you do, you'll act like you didn't).   You act stupid you get called stupid, deal with it.

I have no arguments? Okay, so why is this thread currently 13 pages long?

And as for 'contradiction', please refer yourself to the nearest available copy of the Holy Bible (any edition).

Ya dude, you're fucking out there.  you present flawed logic while trying to knock actual logic.  I litterally feel horrible for your child.  Focalor had you pegged from the get-go, you're a waste of key strokes.

[quadz]

Quadz, you relate what I'm saying to "bullshit theories" and "what seperates science from bunk". You realise, I hope, that you're making such statements in the context of your own personal wordview - as I am making mine.

My point was this: It may be possible to adapt a scientific theory "to situations for which they were not originally intended", but not without doing science.

I think where you and I differ is that you're stuck in the idea that basic scientific principles as they stand today are infallable. My idea is that science is a fluctuating and malleable beast which can only be tamed by debates exactly like this one.

"Science."  You keep using that word.

I know what you're probably going to say - "oh, but your argument falls way outside of even the most basic scientifc principle; that of the 'scientific method'."

Guess what? So did Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity.

Absolutely false.  Einstein's theory was good science: It had explanatory power (the new theory accounts for as many phenomena as the old theory).  It had predictive power (the new theory implies consequences which allow predictions to be made which can subsequently be experimentally verified.)  It was falsifiable (the new theory can be proven wrong by experiment, by testing for the opposite of the theory's implied consequences.)

The development and verification of Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity was absolutely in accord with the scientific method.

For you to claim otherwise indicates--once again--that you appear to have not the faintest clue why science works.

Don't fall into the trap of worshipping science as your god, Quadz.

I respect science--deeply--as the best tool we've yet devised to advance our knowledge and understanding of the universe.

My respect does not extend to religious reverence, however, and here's why: If you (or anyone else) can actually improve on the scientific method, I'll happily adopt the new method instead.

Before attempting to improve on it, however, it would seem prudent to educate oneself as to why the existing method works so well.


Regards,

quadz

[Tubby]

You can't think of any more constructive way of refuting my arguments so you resort to personal attacks. Nice.

Like I said before - classic schoolyard bully tactic.

You contradict yourself over and over, you have no arguments.  You refute your own arguments, no need for anyone else to help--you'll just contradict yourself again eventually and that'll be over (of course once you do, you'll act like you didn't).   You act stupid you get called stupid, deal with it.

Okay ArmOr. Please demonstrate why I'm 'contradicting myself over and over'. I will do my best to put this right.

[Arm0r]

You can't think of any more constructive way of refuting my arguments so you resort to personal attacks. Nice.

Like I said before - classic schoolyard bully tactic.

You contradict yourself over and over, you have no arguments.  You refute your own arguments, no need for anyone else to help--you'll just contradict yourself again eventually and that'll be over (of course once you do, you'll act like you didn't).   You act stupid you get called stupid, deal with it.

Okay ArmOr. Please demonstrate why I'm 'contradicting myself over and over'. I will do my best to put this right.

Yes, and my offspring will take my ideas and beliefs into the next generation, and your offspring will take yours.

Additionally, my offspring will be capable of making an informed decision on their own; especially one that requires nothing more than common sense. If you want to brainwash your offspring into thinking otherwise, that is your decision. The decision of a forum poster between our two "sides" still has nothing to do with natural selection, no matter how much you want it to.

LMAO, like raising your child in the Christian / Jewish / Muslim or whatever faith isn't 'brainwashing'???!!!

Oh my God! (pardon the pun)

my 11 year old daughter frequently wears a Christian Cross around her neck.

I have no problem with that. I have enough faith in my daughter to believe that she will make up her own mind around which idaes and beliefs she will choose to follow as she becomes more aware of the world as it really is - as opposed to those which she has been conditioned to believe in (including mine).

there you go, not like you'll aknowledge it, but there it is.  have fun.

[Tubby]

Thanks ArmOr.

As for my daughter, I'm happy for her to follow whatever path she wishes to follow - religous or otherwise. Seriously, if she becomes the next Christian / Muslim / Jewish / Atheist mentor, she will have my full support.

As I said, I'm not here to judge people on their beliefs - I'm only here to debate them.

[|iR|Focalor]

I'm not here to judge people on their beliefs

That's why you've got me pegged as a christian.

[haunted]

I'm not here to judge people on their beliefs

That's why you've got me pegged as a christian.

And me as well. And that's why he stereotyped everyone who is religious in the original post on this thread:

It seems to me that religious folks take the easy way out of explaning 'life, the universe, and everything' by putting it all down to some sort of supernatural mystery. I guess that's okay if it makes them happy. Others, like myself, tend to think of religion as an easy way out of addressing some basic and fundamental questions.

No priest or other religious person has ever been able to answer any of these very simple questions beyond saying something like "us mere humans can never hope to understand god's wonderful plan".

Wonderful plan. LMFAO

But for serious, he is not here to judge anyone and would never stoop so low to laugh his fucking ass off at someone else's beliefs. He just wants a debate, a formal argument where people refute each others points with facts.

[Th0m@s29]

The real question is why would someone NOT be an atheist lol? O.o