Why I'm an Atheist

[yahoo]

IMHO this thread is his alternative to his proposed "Last Man Standing Mod" . Since he cant have the game might as rather do a thread.   

[Tubby]

Ok, just to reiterate a little here; there are two simple questions I have which I would really like someone of religious belief to answer:


1. Why do you continue to persist in the belief of a supernatural deity when all current scientific evidence (not to mention common sense) points to the non-existence of such a deity?

2. Why, even if such a deity does exist, would you want to worship a god that promotes violence, anger, and hatred towards the people he calls his 'children'?

1. "All Current" scientific evidence does not point to the non-existence of a deity. That would be impossible, since science does not prove the nonexistence of anything. It simply fails to point to evidence of the existence of a deity.

There is a difference, and that difference has already been explained to you in this thread. This difference is apparently the basis for your inability to understand the scientific method.

2.  Since you can't even prove a God exists, how can you prove what he or she promotes? Your first point, if true, renders your second point completely fucktarded and nonsensical.


You will not respond to this because it makes sense, and you would prefer to persist with your childish trolling routine.
Using a bunch of stupid loaded questions, that are actually just statements you want to repeat ad nausuem, will not get you answers that will end this farce.

Have fun with the neverending non-debate.

 

Dervish, you're right in saying that science cannot prove a universal negative, but I never asked for proof. If you refer back to my post I never even used that word. The closest I came to it was the word 'evidence', which any court of law will agree is very much different than 'proof'.

And why do you call this debate a farce? I suspect that you're feeling somewhat backed into a corner by what are actually quite simple and reasonable questions, and like any trapped animal you're starting to lash out.

That's understandable - it's a primitive evolutionary response to threat and fear. 'Fight or flight', I believe it's called. You're choosing to fight. Kewl, but it would be nice if you could throw in a reasonable response without resorting to verbal abuse from time to time.

Isn't that what supposedly 'seperates us humans from the animals'?.

[Tubby]

Focalor, I already apologised to you for assuming that you were religious. Also, I don't 'hate Christians'. I'm just trying to debate some simple arguments here which nobody seems able to reply to without resorting to swearing and personal insults.

[|iR|Focalor]

I don't 'hate Christians'. I'm just trying to debate some simple arguments here

[Tubby]

Focalor, if I 'hated' Christians that would mean I must 'hate' my own parents: As I said way back in post #155; I was raised in the Christian faith.

Also, as I said a few posts later (post #157), I'm happy for my own young daughter to wear a Christian Cross around her neck.

Does that sound like someone who 'hates' Christians? Or is it simply because I dare to question the principles of religion that you assume I must be so full of hate?

[Tubby]

IMHO this thread is his alternative to his proposed "Last Man Standing Mod" . Since he cant have the game might as rather do a thread.   

Dam Yahoo... You got me pegged!!

    <-------me

BTW, Would you play a Last Man Standing mod if there was one??

[quadz]

Or is it simply because I dare to question

...Or is it simply because while you're writing like this:




It comes off more like this:






But hey, I don't have any facts, I'm just trying to debate some simple arguments here.

[yahoo]

 

[Whirlingdervish]

Ok, just to reiterate a little here; there are two simple questions I have which I would really like someone of religious belief to answer:


1. Why do you continue to persist in the belief of a supernatural deity when all current scientific evidence (not to mention common sense) points to the non-existence of such a deity?

2. Why, even if such a deity does exist, would you want to worship a god that promotes violence, anger, and hatred towards the people he calls his 'children'?

1. "All Current" scientific evidence does not point to the non-existence of a deity. That would be impossible, since science does not prove the nonexistence of anything. It simply fails to point to evidence of the existence of a deity.

There is a difference, and that difference has already been explained to you in this thread. This difference is apparently the basis for your inability to understand the scientific method.

2.  Since you can't even prove a God exists, how can you prove what he or she promotes? Your first point, if true, renders your second point completely fucktarded and nonsensical.


You will not respond to this because it makes sense, and you would prefer to persist with your childish trolling routine.
Using a bunch of stupid loaded questions, that are actually just statements you want to repeat ad nausuem, will not get you answers that will end this farce.

Have fun with the neverending non-debate.

 

Dervish, you're right in saying that science cannot prove a universal negative, but I never asked for proof. If you refer back to my post I never even used that word. The closest I came to it was the word 'evidence', which any court of law will agree is very much different than 'proof'.

And why do you call this debate a farce? I suspect that you're feeling somewhat backed into a corner by what are actually quite simple and reasonable questions, and like any trapped animal you're starting to lash out.

That's understandable - it's a primitive evolutionary response to threat and fear. 'Fight or flight', I believe it's called. You're choosing to fight. Kewl, but it would be nice if you could throw in a reasonable response without resorting to verbal abuse from time to time.

Isn't that what supposedly 'seperates us humans from the animals'?.

read the post you quoted. I also didn't say proof or mention courts of law, which have fuckall to do with this "discussion"

I notice that you haven't actually addressed any of the points I've made, and I will accept this as an admission of defeat from you.

I've called this a farce, because it is not a debate. (as I already stated, in the post you quoted) It's you standing on your newly discovered e-soapbox, asking non-questions of people who don't give a shit as a way to make ludicrous and insulting statements, most of which consist of sheer baloney and a hearty helping of you thinking that you're much smarter than you really are.

I've addressed both of your nonsense questions with as much energy as anyone should bother to put towards them and shown them to be idiotic, while you can't even touch my statements and won't because it doesn't jive with your agenda of being a fucktarded snarky troll.

Who's backed into what corner now? Oh yeah...

[haunted]

read the post you quoted. I also didn't say proof or mention courts of law, which have fuckall to do with this "discussion"

I notice that you haven't actually addressed any of the points I've made, and I will accept this as an admission of defeat from you.

I've called this a farce, because it is not a debate. (as I already stated, in the post you quoted) It's you standing on your newly discovered e-soapbox, asking non-questions of people who don't give a shit as a way to make ludicrous and insulting statements, most of which consist of sheer baloney and a hearty helping of you thinking that you're much smarter than you really are.

I've addressed both of your nonsense questions with as much energy as anyone should bother to put towards them and shown them to be idiotic, while you can't even touch my statements and won't because it doesn't jive with your agenda of being a fucktarded snarky troll.

Who's backed into what corner now? Oh yeah...

Yep, parallels my experiences with tubby on this thread.

[|iR|Focalor]

Focalor, if I 'hated' Christians that would mean I must 'hate' my own parents: As I said way back in post #155; I was raised in the Christian faith.

Yeah, and obviously you resent them for the psychic oppression they persecuted you with.

[Tubby]

Lol Quadz, that was funny - thanks for the giggle. They say a picture is worth a thousand words. Well, since you posted three pictures I guess your rebuttal was worth 3000 words... 

Btw Quadz, you never responded to my suggestion that perhaps, sometimes, it's an advantage for one to be a little removed from too much information in order to tell the forest from the trees (post #207). I just put that to you because - as you're obviously highly literate in scientific matters - perhaps you have an inherent bias against someone who argues at a more instinctual level???

For example, someone who is well-trained in, say, law, will instinctively view the world in a 'legal' sort of perspective. Similarly, someone who is well-trained in, say, theology, will instinctively view the world in a 'theological' or 'religious' perspective.

That's perfectly understandable.

All I'm saying is that someone who is perhaps a little removed from such intense training and belief may bring fresh insights into the field which such highly intellectual people may never have even thought to consider: A little like a young child asking his or her mother why their pet cat got to kill a bird without getting punished for it...

[Tubby]

Ok, just to reiterate a little here; there are two simple questions I have which I would really like someone of religious belief to answer:


1. Why do you continue to persist in the belief of a supernatural deity when all current scientific evidence (not to mention common sense) points to the non-existence of such a deity?

2. Why, even if such a deity does exist, would you want to worship a god that promotes violence, anger, and hatred towards the people he calls his 'children'?

1. "All Current" scientific evidence does not point to the non-existence of a deity. That would be impossible, since science does not prove the nonexistence of anything. It simply fails to point to evidence of the existence of a deity.

There is a difference, and that difference has already been explained to you in this thread. This difference is apparently the basis for your inability to understand the scientific method.

2.  Since you can't even prove a God exists, how can you prove what he or she promotes? Your first point, if true, renders your second point completely fucktarded and nonsensical.


You will not respond to this because it makes sense, and you would prefer to persist with your childish trolling routine.
Using a bunch of stupid loaded questions, that are actually just statements you want to repeat ad nausuem, will not get you answers that will end this farce.

Have fun with the neverending non-debate.

 

Dervish, you're right in saying that science cannot prove a universal negative, but I never asked for proof. If you refer back to my post I never even used that word. The closest I came to it was the word 'evidence', which any court of law will agree is very much different than 'proof'.

And why do you call this debate a farce? I suspect that you're feeling somewhat backed into a corner by what are actually quite simple and reasonable questions, and like any trapped animal you're starting to lash out.

That's understandable - it's a primitive evolutionary response to threat and fear. 'Fight or flight', I believe it's called. You're choosing to fight. Kewl, but it would be nice if you could throw in a reasonable response without resorting to verbal abuse from time to time.

Isn't that what supposedly 'seperates us humans from the animals'?.

read the post you quoted. I also didn't say proof or mention courts of law, which have fuckall to do with this "discussion"

I notice that you haven't actually addressed any of the points I've made, and I will accept this as an admission of defeat from you.

I've called this a farce, because it is not a debate. (as I already stated, in the post you quoted) It's you standing on your newly discovered e-soapbox, asking non-questions of people who don't give a shit as a way to make ludicrous and insulting statements, most of which consist of sheer baloney and a hearty helping of you thinking that you're much smarter than you really are.

I've addressed both of your nonsense questions with as much energy as anyone should bother to put towards them and shown them to be idiotic, while you can't even touch my statements and won't because it doesn't jive with your agenda of being a fucktarded snarky troll.

Who's backed into what corner now? Oh yeah...

Dervish, you addressed my 'nonsense' questions by saying: "If Catholics actually took 100% of the bible 100% literally, there would be no Catholic Church", and; "Religion has fuckall to do with it, people being people is the problem.".

Well, I appreciate that, Dervish, but I was really looking for a more in-depth explanation...

[Tubby]

Focalor, if I 'hated' Christians that would mean I must 'hate' my own parents: As I said way back in post #155; I was raised in the Christian faith.

Yeah, and obviously you resent them for the psychic oppression they persecuted you with.

Focalor, I don't resent my parents, but I guess I do think I would be better off now if I hadn't been bound as a child by the restraints and restrictions of my parent's personal religious beliefs which they imposed on me at that formative stage of my life.

[haunted]

Btw Quadz, you never responded to my suggestion that perhaps, sometimes, it's an advantage for one to be a little removed from too much information in order to tell the forest from the trees (post #207). I just put that to you because - as you're obviously highly literate in scientific matters - perhaps you have an inherent bias against someone who argues at a more instinctual level???

He has no bias, nor do I. I have no doubt that you are arguing at the "instinctual level". Rest assured that I know that your views are not widely accepted and are formulated by your best "instinct". What you have trouble with, is when your instinct completely contradicts scientific facts. For example, if someone proved me wrong with factual information: My instinct would be to research this matter and learn about it, if factual information contradicted what I had to say. This is intellectual thought at it's best; learning from your mistakes.. expanding your mind PAST what you know and accepting that your best inference about the topic is wrong .....I say inference because in a complex scientific topic your instinct without research/fact just becomes your best, aimless assumption or inference. This isn't an argument that can be won with philosophy or rhetoric. Applying those concepts to a scientific debate while contradicting factual information makes you lose any credibility, whatsoever.