In Your Own Words

The Theist
TheistardTroll
The Theist's picture
Posts: 217
Joined: 2012-03-09
User is offlineOffline
In Your Own Words

It strikes me odd that atheist, usually science minded and of the notion that humans are animals, find theism irrational. What exactly do you think is irrational about theism? If at all possible I would like to request than anyone responding would please, for this thread at least, do so in a manner more logical than emotional.


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 264
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
Well, since we've gone so

Well, since we've gone so far in discovering the origins of our Universe, the origin of our planet, of life on our planet, and the species on it, the arguments for theism are reduced to almost nothing. All of the popular forms of theism (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Mormonism (which I hold separate from Christianity)) are based on books that are obviously wrong, hence were obviously written by humans rather than divinely inspired. Furthermore, if you spend a mere 5 minutes trying to think of how useful such ideologies would be for a kingdom under totalitarian rule, it makes MUCH more sense. 

That's my first morsel of troll food for you, use it wisely. 

Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.


The Theist
TheistardTroll
The Theist's picture
Posts: 217
Joined: 2012-03-09
User is offlineOffline
Jabberwocky wrote:Well,

Jabberwocky wrote:

Well, since we've gone so far in discovering the origins of our Universe, the origin of our planet, of life on our planet, and the species on it, the arguments for theism are reduced to almost nothing. All of the popular forms of theism (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Mormonism (which I hold separate from Christianity)) are based on books that are obviously wrong, hence were obviously written by humans rather than divinely inspired. Furthermore, if you spend a mere 5 minutes trying to think of how useful such ideologies would be for a kingdom under totalitarian rule, it makes MUCH more sense. 

That's my first morsel of troll food for you, use it wisely. 

There is a time for war and a time for peace. I am most capable of returning adversarial banter or respectful and thoughtful discourse. Let this be the later. Thanks for a thoughtful response.

Judaism was influenced heavily by Greek philosophy, beginning in earnest after Alexander the Great, though of course it's imperfections prior to that are honestly recorded in the Bible itself. Similarly even the early Christians cautioned against contrary influences. Paul warned of this using the Greek word mythous, later translated into the Latin fabulas. Myth. Fables. The Qur'an and the Book of Mormon were primitive, for a lack of a better word, and inaccurate interpretations of, to a greater or lesser extent, the Bible. The fall of the Roman empire brought about the dark ages, in which superstition and disease were  visited upon the human race like never before, but it has always been interesting to me that much of the traditions of, especially Christianity, that we know today, especially the skeptic, comes from the understanding of that time. For example, the firmament. Illustrations in Bibles and Bible dictionaries have the expanse of the heavens pictured as it was thought to have been at that time, a solid dome with sluice holes to allow rain in. This isn't at all what the writers of the Bible meant when using the Hebrew word raqia, but skeptics to this day assume the Bible represents this kind of thinking.

A great deal of harm was done by the Church as well. Aside from the obvious intolerance of the Inquisition and Crusades there was also a great deal of confusion caused by their arrogant position having been so threatened by the growth of scientific knowledge. The atheist tends to judge the Bible in the light of this as well, unfairly, in my opinion.

Pythagoras influenced Aristotle and Ptolemy who in turn influenced Aquinas, who influenced the church, the result being the geocentric concept opposed to Galileo's heliocentric concept. The Bible verses used were Ecclesiastes 1:5 and Psalm 104:5. In both of those cases figurative language is used by the Bible that is very similar to today, without contradiction with science. "The sun rises and sets." "The foundations of the earth."

Since then we have learned a great deal about the writings of the Bible, through archaeological discoveries, as well as the discoveries of many manuscripts which allow for a great deal more understanding of the collection of books and the cultures they include than ever before. A much greater understanding of the language.

So when science estimates the age of the universe we now know the Bible doesn't disagree with it. But then again, in all actuality, our own understanding of the universe is still arguably in it's infant stage anyway. I can't see where an ignorance of the Bible, based primarily upon the highly questionable academia of higher criticism and a mentality that more reflects modern tradition based upon Greek philosophy and the superstitions of the dark age is a logical conclusion that theism is irrational.


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
The very basic concept of

The very basic concept of theism, which I will define as some super powerful entity that created the universe is interesting but has not facts to support it, is harmless.   I have no problem with it.

When people start saying they know that this theorized entity pays attention to our actions, and dictates to us what we should do, that's when we start to have major problems with this unsubtatiated claim.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


The Theist
TheistardTroll
The Theist's picture
Posts: 217
Joined: 2012-03-09
User is offlineOffline
Watcher wrote:The very basic

Watcher wrote:

The very basic concept of theism, which I will define as some super powerful entity that created the universe is interesting but has no facts to support it, is harmless.   I have no problem with it.

When people start saying they know that this theorized entity pays attention to our actions, and dictates to us what we should do, that's when we start to have major problems with this unsubstantiated claim.

Here is another common atheist complaint. I have trouble with it as being a legitimate reason for finding theism as irrational for two reasons. 

1. Theism is a harmless myth until it becomes harmful by proposing the entity pays attention to our actions and dictates to us what we should do, and this is when we start to have major problems with this unsubstantiated claim but then we sing to our children: "You better watch out, You better not cry, Better not pout, I'm telling you why, Santa Claus is coming to town, He's making a list, And checking it twice; Gonna find out Who's naughty and nice, Santa Claus is coming to town, He sees you when you're sleeping, He knows when you're awake, He knows if you've been bad or good, So be good for goodness sake! O! You better watch out! You better not cry, Better not pout, I'm telling you why, Santa Claus is coming to town, Santa Claus is coming to town." That's okay because Santa doesn't claim to have created the universe?

2. What facts are there regarding the creation of, or the sudden appearance of, the universe besides the Bible?


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4160
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
The Theist wrote:Watcher

The Theist wrote:

Watcher wrote:

The very basic concept of theism, which I will define as some super powerful entity that created the universe is interesting but has no facts to support it, is harmless.   I have no problem with it.

When people start saying they know that this theorized entity pays attention to our actions, and dictates to us what we should do, that's when we start to have major problems with this unsubstantiated claim.

Here is another common atheist complaint. I have trouble with it as being a legitimate reason for finding theism as irrational for two reasons. 

1. Theism is a harmless myth until it becomes harmful by proposing the entity pays attention to our actions and dictates to us what we should do, and this is when we start to have major problems with this unsubstantiated claim but then we sing to our children: "You better watch out, You better not cry, Better not pout, I'm telling you why, Santa Claus is coming to town, He's making a list, And checking it twice; Gonna find out Who's naughty and nice, Santa Claus is coming to town, He sees you when you're sleeping, He knows when you're awake, He knows if you've been bad or good, So be good for goodness sake! O! You better watch out! You better not cry, Better not pout, I'm telling you why, Santa Claus is coming to town, Santa Claus is coming to town." That's okay because Santa doesn't claim to have created the universe?

2. What facts are there regarding the creation of, or the sudden appearance of, the universe besides the Bible?

 

I'm pretty sure all of us would consider believing in Santa Clause to be an irrational belief. I know if an adult told me the really believed in Santa Clause I would consider them stupid, delusional and irrational.


The Theist
TheistardTroll
The Theist's picture
Posts: 217
Joined: 2012-03-09
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:I'm

Beyond Saving wrote:

I'm pretty sure all of us would consider believing in Santa Clause to be an irrational belief. I know if an adult told me the really believed in Santa Clause I would consider them stupid, delusional and irrational.

Is it rational to teach it to our children for our own amusement?


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1829
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
I believe holding a belief

I believe holding a belief in an undefined concept is irrational.  Define God, and depending on your definition, belief in such an entity would be rational or otherwise.

 

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4160
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
The Theist wrote:Beyond

The Theist wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

I'm pretty sure all of us would consider believing in Santa Clause to be an irrational belief. I know if an adult told me the really believed in Santa Clause I would consider them stupid, delusional and irrational.

Is it rational to teach it to our children for our own amusement?

 

Lol, little of what parents do is rational but since I am not a parent I try to avoid telling parents what they should do. I suppose if your goal is to amuse yourself or the child it would be an effective means to achieve your goal, I see nothing wrong with fantasizing as long as you recognize it as fantasy. Besides, it is good for children to learn that their parents are not completely trustworthy, it might save them from believing everything an authority figure tells them. 


The Theist
TheistardTroll
The Theist's picture
Posts: 217
Joined: 2012-03-09
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Lol,

Beyond Saving wrote:
Lol, little of what parents do is rational but since I am not a parent I try to avoid telling parents what they should do. I suppose if your goal is to amuse yourself or the child it would be an effective means to achieve your goal, I see nothing wrong with fantasizing as long as you recognize it as fantasy. Besides, it is good for children to learn that their parents are not completely trustworthy, it might save them from believing everything an authority figure tells them. 

So long as they can benefit from it on a material level. So its okay to be theistic as long as you know it isn't real, but you wouldn't presume to dictate to anyone what is rational and what is irrational. These are judgment calls. We decide for ourselves what is or isn't rational. Is this correct?


The Theist
TheistardTroll
The Theist's picture
Posts: 217
Joined: 2012-03-09
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:I believe

Ktulu wrote:
I believe holding a belief in an undefined concept is irrational.  Define God, and depending on your definition, belief in such an entity would be rational or otherwise.

I find this terribly interesting. My mind races with attempts to equate defined concept as rational.

Which of these two are rational?

1. I believe, like most people, that 911 was a terrorist attack on the World Trade Center, U.S. Pentagon and a plane went down in Pennsylvania. Osama Bin Laden  orchestrated these attacks and was killed while Barrack Obama was president. I seen it all on T.V.

2. I believe 911 was a false flag operation orchestrated by the United States government. Osama Bin Laden condemned the attacks and was never charged for them. Explosives were used to bring down towers 1, 2 and 7. The media reported the collapse of tower 7 20 minutes before it was pulled. At least 9 of the alleged hijackers are still alive. Some of the planes said to have been destroyed still exist. There was no remains of a plane at the Pentagon or Pennsylvania. Osama Bin Laden died in December of 2001 at Tora Bora, and at the least couldn't have survived more than 6 years later than that because he was kidney dialysis. Madelein Albright stated that he was dead but the U.S. government would at some later time fake his death for political reasons.

And Which of these two are rational?

1. Though I wasn't there, I believe life evolved because that is what I was taught.

2. Though I wasn't there, I believe we were created because that is what I was taught.

And which of these two?

1. December 1, 1903: Though I don't know how, I believe that one day man can fly in a machine.

2. December 1, 2013: Though I don't know how, I believe that we can teleport a human being from one place to another.

 


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4160
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
The Theist wrote:Beyond

The Theist wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:
Lol, little of what parents do is rational but since I am not a parent I try to avoid telling parents what they should do. I suppose if your goal is to amuse yourself or the child it would be an effective means to achieve your goal, I see nothing wrong with fantasizing as long as you recognize it as fantasy. Besides, it is good for children to learn that their parents are not completely trustworthy, it might save them from believing everything an authority figure tells them. 

So long as they can benefit from it on a material level. So its okay to be theistic as long as you know it isn't real, but you wouldn't presume to dictate to anyone what is rational and what is irrational. These are judgment calls. We decide for ourselves what is or isn't rational. Is this correct?

I have no problem with anyone being theistic. I have no problem with anyone being irrational. You are free to be as irrational as you desire. The only time I am going to have a real issue is when you try to pass laws or you come knocking on my door. If you want to sit behind your computer making up stories or regurgitating made up stories all day be my guest. But don't be surprised when people who think are going to tell you you're spewing a bunch of bullshit when you have no evidence to support extraordinary claims. When you readily accept claims that have no basis in reality and no evidence then proclaim them as the absolute Truth, you are being irrational and we are here to tell you so. 

 


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4160
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
The Theist wrote:I find this

The Theist wrote:

I find this terribly interesting. My mind races with attempts to equate defined concept as rational.

Which of these two are rational?

1. I believe, like most people, that 911 was a terrorist attack on the World Trade Center, U.S. Pentagon and a plane went down in Pennsylvania. Osama Bin Laden  orchestrated these attacks and was killed while Barrack Obama was president. I seen it all on T.V.

2. I believe 911 was a false flag operation orchestrated by the United States government. Osama Bin Laden condemned the attacks and was never charged for them. Explosives were used to bring down towers 1, 2 and 7. The media reported the collapse of tower 7 20 minutes before it was pulled. At least 9 of the alleged hijackers are still alive. Some of the planes said to have been destroyed still exist. There was no remains of a plane at the Pentagon or Pennsylvania. Osama Bin Laden died in December of 2001 at Tora Bora, and at the least couldn't have survived more than 6 years later than that because he was kidney dialysis. Madelein Albright stated that he was dead but the U.S. government would at some later time fake his death for political reasons.

#1 is rational as there is significant evidence to support the claims.

#2 could have been rational at one time as a hypothesis, however, anyone who has done any significant research into the claims of the truthers knows that they are false. If you hold these beliefs now you are either ignorant or irrational, if you do the research and continue to hold the belief despite the evidence against it you are irrational. 

Note, it is not irrational to have an incorrect belief, it is irrational to continue to hold an irrational belief when it is inconsistent with the available data, as the available data changes a belief can change from rational to irrational. For example, I would not say that someone who believed the world was flat 2000 years ago was irrational, if someone today held that belief after seeing evidence the world was round and even after sailing around the world themselves, they would be irrational. 

 

The Theist wrote:

And Which of these two are rational?

1. Though I wasn't there, I believe life evolved because that is what I was taught.

2. Though I wasn't there, I believe we were created because that is what I was taught.

Both simply display ignorance and neither is necessarily irrational. You are simply accepting what someone has told you and if you never bothered to research the subject you would have no reason to hold a different belief. If you believed 2 because that is what you were told and you willfully ignored evidence that 1 was in fact the more likely scenario then you are irrational. I consider willful ignorance to be irrational, but ignorance because of circumstance is not, obviously, it is impossible for any human to avoid ignorance on a wide number of topics. Personally, before I attended this site regularly I was rather ignorant on the topic myself. There are many people on this site who can cure ignorance on a variety of topics for someone interested in learning, and unlike theists who routinely refer you to a single book, the science types on here can provide a veritable cornucopia of links to additional research and raw data.

 

The Theist wrote:

And which of these two?

1. December 1, 1903: Though I don't know how, I believe that one day man can fly in a machine.

2. December 1, 2013: Though I don't know how, I believe that we can teleport a human being from one place to another.

Neither one is irrational, both are statements predicting possible future abilities at a time when there is not enough data to say conclusively whether it is possible or not. Now, suppose you hadn't seen your neighbor leave their house for several days, it would be irrational to believe your neighbor is teleporting from one place to another unless you came across strong evidence that such a machine had been invented.

You seem to be equating irrational and wrong. Irrational is not just holding an incorrect belief, we all hold incorrect beliefs at one time or another. Irrational is holding on to an incorrect belief even when you have evidence that the belief is false and you have no evidence that it is true. That is why people like Ktulu ask you to define god before declaring it irrational. Belief in the christian god is clearly irrational, while others who have simply defined "god" as any being more powerful than humans or other watered down versions of "god" lack the preponderance of evidence against them, but they still tend to have no evidence to support the claims. 


The Theist
TheistardTroll
The Theist's picture
Posts: 217
Joined: 2012-03-09
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:I have

Beyond Saving wrote:
I have no problem with anyone being theistic. I have no problem with anyone being irrational. You are free to be as irrational as you desire. The only time I am going to have a real issue is when you try to pass laws or you come knocking on my door. If you want to sit behind your computer making up stories or regurgitating made up stories all day be my guest. But don't be surprised when people who think are going to tell you you're spewing a bunch of bullshit when you have no evidence to support extraordinary claims. When you readily accept claims that have no basis in reality and no evidence then proclaim them as the absolute Truth, you are being irrational and we are here to tell you so. 

 

Earlier you said that little of what parents do is rational, but with no experience as a parent you don't presume to tell them what to do. You also said that a fantasy, like teaching children the myth of Christmas, isn't irrational as long as it isn't believed as reality.  You say here that you have no problem with anyone being theistic or irrational as long as they don't pass laws and come to your door. Then you say that, unlike irrational parents teaching their children the myth of Santa Clause these people are going to be corrected by you. There is something about this that seem irrational to me, but I don't know where you live. Where I live, in the United States, what you say seems irrational in theory but rational in practice because though the country was founded as a Republic, where the wishes of 99% of the people can't take away the liberty of 1% the politicians have convinced the idiot masses that the country is a Democracy where 51% of the people can remove the liberty of 49% by dictation. In this case, laws can be passed by the mandate of the majority. As Atheist you happen to be the minority, and I assume, an idiot. 

In the post below the one I'm currently responding to, made by you, you indicate that it is irrational to be willfully ignorant. Once you have looked at the evidence you can make a rational informed decision. Since you have obviously researched the Bible to have determined it is nonsense and it makes all sorts of extraordinary unsupported claims, you should be able to tell me why Christians shouldn't influence legislation in their country according to that very Bible - can you do this now, please, for the reader? 

 


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4160
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
The Theist wrote:Earlier you

The Theist wrote:

Earlier you said that little of what parents do is rational, but with no experience as a parent you don't presume to tell them what to do. You also said that a fantasy, like teaching children the myth of Christmas, isn't irrational as long as it isn't believed as reality.  You say here that you have no problem with anyone being theistic or irrational as long as they don't pass laws and come to your door. Then you say that, unlike irrational parents teaching their children the myth of Santa Clause these people are going to be corrected by you. There is something about this that seem irrational to me, but I don't know where you live. Where I live, in the United States, what you say seems irrational in theory but rational in practice because though the country was founded as a Republic, where the wishes of 99% of the people can't take away the liberty of 1% the politicians have convinced the idiot masses that the country is a Democracy where 51% of the people can remove the liberty of 49% by dictation. In this case, laws can be passed by the mandate of the majority. As Atheist you happen to be the minority, and I assume, an idiot. 

In the post below the one I'm currently responding to, made by you, you indicate that it is irrational to be willfully ignorant. Once you have looked at the evidence you can make a rational informed decision. Since you have obviously researched the Bible to have determined it is nonsense and it makes all sorts of extraordinary unsupported claims, you should be able to tell me why Christians shouldn't influence legislation in their country according to that very Bible - can you do this now, please, for the reader? 

 

I am against most laws regardless of whether they are influenced by the bible, Marx or the monkey in your closet. My political views are thoroughly hashed out throughout the political forum on this site, most threads there have at least have a comment from me and many have fully fleshed arguments. Generally I find politics much more entertaining to debate than religion.  

I fail to see anything inconsistent with me saying that have no problem with whatever particular irrationalities you indulge in as long as you don't try to pass a law insisting I do x or don't do x to be consistent with your beliefs. I don't care what you believe in, how stupid you are or how irrational you are as long as it doesn't affect my life. When christians decide to pass laws against sins like gambling, prostitution, drug use, drinking etc. Now I have a big problem. If you live off on your own and follow your crazy ass cult beliefs like the Amish, I might laugh when I drive by you, but I don't have an issue with you. You will note I have an equally big problem with secularists who attempt to use the law to impose their version of morality on me through their social programs, wealth redistribution, nanny government and often crazy environmental edicts. I don't try to control how you live your life, don't try to control how I live mine.  

Meanwhile, if you come on a site like this, (or encounter me in rl) and spout your craziness I will tell you that you are an idiot, assuming I have the time to do so and am in the mood. I have no problem with you being an idiot, you are welcome to it, but since I am a nice guy I will point it out the same way I might point out that your fly is open because I assume that you are not aware of it. Just because I don't have a problem with you having stupid beliefs doesn't mean I'm going to avoid pointing them out. If you read any of the atheist v. atheist debates you will see plenty of times where one of us points out the stupidity of a flawed belief of the other, doesn't mean we have a problem with each other.

And if I ever encountered an adult who truly believed in Santa Clause I would tell them they are an idiot too, but I never have met one. I have met people who believe a variety of batshit crazy things like the lochness monster, that George Bush was a lizard, that 9/11 was a hoax, that Obama plans to declare himself king, that Elvis is still alive etc. and I don't hesitate to point out how crazy their beliefs are either. So don't think I'm picking on poor little christianity. I am equal opportunity when it comes to pointing out batshit crazy.   


The Theist
TheistardTroll
The Theist's picture
Posts: 217
Joined: 2012-03-09
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:#1 is

Beyond Saving wrote:
#1 is rational as there is significant evidence to support the claims.

#2 could have been rational at one time as a hypothesis, however, anyone who has done any significant research into the claims of the truthers knows that they are false. If you hold these beliefs now you are either ignorant or irrational, if you do the research and continue to hold the belief despite the evidence against it you are irrational.

Actually, there is almost no evidence that wasn't fabricated and easily falsifiable to support #1 and all of the real evidence, including scientific, supports #2 but #1 is the one believed by the majority simply because they are told to believe that by the people who perpetuated the crime. The United States Government. Not only that but in the two examples, # 2 was more carefully defined. The other was simply presented as opinion. Propaganda.

This doesn't surprise me because I have long ago discovered that atheist always give their hallow rallying cry: "Where are the facts?! Show me the evidence?!" but that's only because they blindly assume the facts and the evidence support them. Somehow, atheists always manage to surprise me by being so extremely intellectually retarded and intellectually dishonest at the same time. This tells me they have been indoctrinated into a paradigm they feel overconfident in. I'm talking exclusively about militant atheist. The type you see on the internet spending hours telling people how the God and Bible they know very little if anything about isn't at ALL important to them. Idiots. Not the real atheists like I was before I educated myself to the real facts and the real evidence.

Beyond Saving wrote:
Note, it is not irrational to have an incorrect belief, it is irrational to continue to hold an irrational belief when it is inconsistent with the available data, as the available data changes a belief can change from rational to irrational. For example, I would not say that someone who believed the world was flat 2000 years ago was irrational, if someone today held that belief after seeing evidence the world was round and even after sailing around the world themselves, they would be irrational.

Remember this, reader, it will be important later on in this response.

Beyond Saving wrote:
Both simply display ignorance and neither is necessarily irrational. You are simply accepting what someone has told you and if you never bothered to research the subject you would have no reason to hold a different belief. If you believed 2 because that is what you were told and you willfully ignored evidence that 1 was in fact the more likely scenario then you are irrational. I consider willful ignorance to be irrational, but ignorance because of circumstance is not, obviously, it is impossible for any human to avoid ignorance on a wide number of topics. Personally, before I attended this site regularly I was rather ignorant on the topic myself. There are many people on this site who can cure ignorance on a variety of topics for someone interested in learning, and unlike theists who routinely refer you to a single book, the science types on here can provide a veritable cornucopia of links to additional research and raw data.

But I said that each of the cases were taught. How could someone who has been taught remain ignorant? Of course, you are biased. How many people who were taught evolution in schools do you think researched it on their own from an unbiased perspective to insure that they hadn't been indoctrinated? The religious ones, maybe.

Beyond Saving wrote:
Neither one is irrational, both are statements predicting possible future abilities at a time when there is not enough data to say conclusively whether it is possible or not.

But earlier you said that irrationality was defined by that very exact criteria. You said: "it is not irrational to have an incorrect belief, it is irrational to continue to hold an irrational belief when it is inconsistent with the available data."

Beyond Saving wrote:
Now, suppose you hadn't seen your neighbor leave their house for several days, it would be irrational to believe your neighbor is teleporting from one place to another unless you came across strong evidence that such a machine had been invented.

So lets say it happens, in this hypothetical, that your neighbor has just invented this machine, and you discover this, and you go to your local science club or instutution - you know, where they get paid to compare the viscosity of Ketchup and create thermo-nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons of mass destruction that make the entire history of religious destruction look puny - and you tell the arrogant geek pricks there at the science club that your neighbor is teleporting himself and all of the ignorant pricks there say to you: "You are irrational. There is no such thing as teleportation or we would know about it."

Would you . . .

A.) Ragain that distant vacant look in your eyes and say: "Oh, yeah . . . I almost forgot for a second . . ."  

B.) Try to explain the facts and present the evidence to the ugly cock suckers in desperate need of getting their pathetic asses laid, even though they refused to accept it, and constantly dismissed you as: "Unscientific."

C. Turn their ketchup and thermo-nuclear, biological and chemical weapons they created for money to gain much needed research grants and be published in order to indoctrinate blind idiots like you - turn those on them. 

D. Go home and watch National Geographic where they have to say the words "Evolution" and "Billy-uns of years ago" at least everly 4 minutes. 

Beyond Saving wrote:
You seem to be equating irrational and wrong. Irrational is not just holding an incorrect belief, we all hold incorrect beliefs at one time or another. Irrational is holding on to an incorrect belief even when you have evidence that the belief is false and you have no evidence that it is true. That is why people like Ktulu ask you to define god before declaring it irrational. Belief in the christian god is clearly irrational, while others who have simply defined "god" as any being more powerful than humans or other watered down versions of "god" lack the preponderance of evidence against them, but they still tend to have no evidence to support the claims. 

Uh-huh. Oh, I believe you.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10140
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Quote:ra·tion·al adjective

Quote:
ra·tion·al
adjective
1.
agreeable to reason; reasonable; sensible: a rational plan for economic development.
2.
having or exercising reason, sound judgment, or good sense: a calm and rational negotiator.
3.
being in or characterized by full possession of one's reason; sane; lucid: The patient appeared perfectly rational.
4.
endowed with the faculty of reason: rational beings.
5.
of, pertaining to, or constituting reasoning powers: the rational faculty.

It's simple. According to the definition of rational, theism is not rational. There is no evidence to support theism, there is no logic in theism, there is no sense in theism. It is not reasonable to believe in magic or gods or anything else for which there is no evidence or substance.

It is not and can not be rational.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10140
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
The Theist wrote:Actually,

The Theist wrote:
Actually, there is almost no evidence that wasn't fabricated and easily falsifiable to support #1 and all of the real evidence, including scientific, supports #2 but #1 is the one believed by the majority simply because they are told to believe that by the people who perpetuated the crime.

You got this backwards. No science supports theism. All science supports evolution. Only fabrications, and ancient and primitive texts, have ever lent support to belief in deities.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


The Theist
TheistardTroll
The Theist's picture
Posts: 217
Joined: 2012-03-09
User is offlineOffline
Message deleted by The Theist

Message deleted by The Theist


 


The Theist
TheistardTroll
The Theist's picture
Posts: 217
Joined: 2012-03-09
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:The Theist

Vastet wrote:
The Theist wrote:
Actually, there is almost no evidence that wasn't fabricated and easily falsifiable to support #1 and all of the real evidence, including scientific, supports #2 but #1 is the one believed by the majority simply because they are told to believe that by the people who perpetuated the crime.
You got this backwards. No science supports theism. All science supports evolution. Only fabrications, and ancient and primitive texts, have ever lent support to belief in deities.

The quote you gave was a consideration of the alleged terrorist attacks of 911. Its nothing to do with theism. Oh, and not all science supports evolution.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10140
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
1: The 'real' bible doesn't

1: The 'real' bible doesn't exist. The language is dead and the few remaining documents are incomplete, fabricated, or incompatible with each other.

2: ALL science supports evolution.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1829
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
The Theist wrote:Ktulu

The Theist wrote:

Ktulu wrote:
I believe holding a belief in an undefined concept is irrational.  Define God, and depending on your definition, belief in such an entity would be rational or otherwise.

I find this terribly interesting. My mind races with attempts to equate defined concept as rational.

Which of these two are rational?

1. I believe, like most people, that 911 was a terrorist attack on the World Trade Center, U.S. Pentagon and a plane went down in Pennsylvania. Osama Bin Laden  orchestrated these attacks and was killed while Barrack Obama was president. I seen it all on T.V.

2. I believe 911 was a false flag operation orchestrated by the United States government. Osama Bin Laden condemned the attacks and was never charged for them. Explosives were used to bring down towers 1, 2 and 7. The media reported the collapse of tower 7 20 minutes before it was pulled. At least 9 of the alleged hijackers are still alive. Some of the planes said to have been destroyed still exist. There was no remains of a plane at the Pentagon or Pennsylvania. Osama Bin Laden died in December of 2001 at Tora Bora, and at the least couldn't have survived more than 6 years later than that because he was kidney dialysis. Madelein Albright stated that he was dead but the U.S. government would at some later time fake his death for political reasons.

And Which of these two are rational?

1. Though I wasn't there, I believe life evolved because that is what I was taught.

2. Though I wasn't there, I believe we were created because that is what I was taught.

And which of these two?

1. December 1, 1903: Though I don't know how, I believe that one day man can fly in a machine.

2. December 1, 2013: Though I don't know how, I believe that we can teleport a human being from one place to another.

 

I think that you are missing the point.  The fact that you make a DEFINITE claim, or you define a concept, allows us to judge said concept.  You can begin to gather evidence, or to logically asses the claim/concept.  If you do not clearly define that concept, it is irrational to believe it.  

which one of these is true.  

Shmurkfulks are allergic to peanuts.

Shmukfulks love peanuts.

 

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


The Theist
TheistardTroll
The Theist's picture
Posts: 217
Joined: 2012-03-09
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:1: The 'real'

Vastet wrote:
1: The 'real' bible doesn't exist. The language is dead and the few remaining documents are incomplete, fabricated, or incompatible with each other. 2: ALL science supports evolution.

Evolution isn't worth more than a passing rhetorical commentary, lets get back to your bold unsubstantial claims, as most theists would call them. I would call them bullshit. How many remaining documents are there, that are incomplete, fabricated or incompatible with each other and how many otherwise would there have to be for a contrary effect?

In other words, fumble about in the dark in order that you may substantiate your bold claims while I, even I break out the rusty old God of War.


The Theist
TheistardTroll
The Theist's picture
Posts: 217
Joined: 2012-03-09
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:I think that you

Ktulu wrote:
I think that you are missing the point.  The fact that you make a DEFINITE claim, or you define a concept, allows us to judge said concept.  You can begin to gather evidence, or to logically asses the claim/concept.  If you do not clearly define that concept, it is irrational to believe it.  

which one of these is true.  

Shmurkfulks are allergic to peanuts.

Shmukfulks love peanuts.

Both are true.

Researchers at the Shmukional Institutes of Health (SIH) have found that more than 50 percent of the current asthma cases on the planet can be attributed to allergies, with approximately 30 percent of those cases attributed to peanut allergy.

"It has long been debated whether Shmukfulks who develop asthma have a genetic propensity to develop allergies, or atopy," said Darryl C. Shmukdin, M.D., a senior investigator at the Shmukional Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (SIEHS). "This new research shows that 56.3 percent of asthma cases are attributed to atopy." Atopy is a condition that results from gene-environment interactions and can be measured by a positive skin test to allergens (or allergy causing substances in the environment).

The study, available online today in the Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, was conducted by researchers at the Shmukional Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (SIEHS) and the Shmukional Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, both parts of the SIH. The data come from the Third Shmukional Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (SHANES III), a Shmukally representative sample of the population of the Shmurk Confederation Of Planets.

"Sensitization to peanuts appears to be a strong risk factor for asthma in this study," said Shmukdin. Shmukdin and his co-authors, however, point out that some research shows that exposure to peanuts, particularly early in life, may be a protective factor. "We are not advocating parents get rid of peanuts, but if you suspect that you or your child might have peanut allergies or get asthmatic-like symptoms, you should consult with a physician about the best course of action for your family," added Shmukdin.


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4160
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
The Theist wrote:Beyond

The Theist wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:
#1 is rational as there is significant evidence to support the claims.

#2 could have been rational at one time as a hypothesis, however, anyone who has done any significant research into the claims of the truthers knows that they are false. If you hold these beliefs now you are either ignorant or irrational, if you do the research and continue to hold the belief despite the evidence against it you are irrational.

Actually, there is almost no evidence that wasn't fabricated and easily falsifiable to support #1 and all of the real evidence, including scientific, supports #2 but #1 is the one believed by the majority simply because they are told to believe that by the people who perpetuated the crime. The United States Government. Not only that but in the two examples, # 2 was more carefully defined. The other was simply presented as opinion. Propaganda.

This doesn't surprise me because I have long ago discovered that atheist always give their hallow rallying cry: "Where are the facts?! Show me the evidence?!" but that's only because they blindly assume the facts and the evidence support them. Somehow, atheists always manage to surprise me by being so extremely intellectually retarded and intellectually dishonest at the same time. This tells me they have been indoctrinated into a paradigm they feel overconfident in. I'm talking exclusively about militant atheist. The type you see on the internet spending hours telling people how the God and Bible they know very little if anything about isn't at ALL important to them. Idiots. Not the real atheists like I was before I educated myself to the real facts and the real evidence.

Ah yes, because it is so easy to falsify such an event, especially when you have the wonderfully efficient and notoriously good at keeping secrets US government on the job. We have dealt with truthers on here a couple dozen times and even now over a decade later they have been unable to provide any evidence. At best, they can point to a few things that are unknown and come up with an extraordinarily complex conspiracy theory while ignoring the simple much more likely explanation. Usually, they simply make up things that can be demonstrated as flat out lies as there were a significant number of recording devices around that day, government, corporate and private. Add in the fact that our government couldn't even keep a little thing like Fast & Furious secret, it is highly unlikely that it could keep an operation of the magnitude of faking 9/11 secret. Feel free to peruse the threads where truthers have been outed as the crazies they are. 

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/29798

It is nice to know your irrationality isn't limited to theism though.

 

The Theist wrote:

But I said that each of the cases were taught. How could someone who has been taught remain ignorant? Of course, you are biased. How many people who were taught evolution in schools do you think researched it on their own from an unbiased perspective to insure that they hadn't been indoctrinated? The religious ones, maybe.

One should never accept what one is told as absolute fact without verification. Some sources are certainly more trustworthy than others and you should always take that into consideration when determining whether or not to believe it if you are unable or simply don't care to go through the effort to verify the facts for yourself. Obviously, if your information comes from several trustworthy sources you are going to put more weight on it because the reality is that no human has enough time to independently verify everything they believe. 

In my experience, few theists can talk intelligently about evolution at all and those who can are not the YEC types. You will find that many atheists on this site have done a significant amount of research on the subject, because they are interested in it. Among the general population, most people are completely ignorant on the subject whether they believe in evolution or not but that assertion is correct about most topics.

 

The Theist wrote:
 

Beyond Saving wrote:
Neither one is irrational, both are statements predicting possible future abilities at a time when there is not enough data to say conclusively whether it is possible or not.

But earlier you said that irrationality was defined by that very exact criteria. You said: "it is not irrational to have an incorrect belief, it is irrational to continue to hold an irrational belief when it is inconsistent with the available data."

And neither statement is inconsistent with available data, both statements are openly admitting that the data is not available and making a prediction about where future data might lead. 

 

The Theist wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:
Now, suppose you hadn't seen your neighbor leave their house for several days, it would be irrational to believe your neighbor is teleporting from one place to another unless you came across strong evidence that such a machine had been invented.

So lets say it happens, in this hypothetical, that your neighbor has just invented this machine, and you discover this, and you go to your local science club or instutution - you know, where they get paid to compare the viscosity of Ketchup and create thermo-nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons of mass destruction that make the entire history of religious destruction look puny - and you tell the arrogant geek pricks there at the science club that your neighbor is teleporting himself and all of the ignorant pricks there say to you: "You are irrational. There is no such thing as teleportation or we would know about it."

Would you . . .

A.) Ragain that distant vacant look in your eyes and say: "Oh, yeah . . . I almost forgot for a second . . ."  

B.) Try to explain the facts and present the evidence to the ugly cock suckers in desperate need of getting their pathetic asses laid, even though they refused to accept it, and constantly dismissed you as: "Unscientific."

C. Turn their ketchup and thermo-nuclear, biological and chemical weapons they created for money to gain much needed research grants and be published in order to indoctrinate blind idiots like you - turn those on them. 

D. Go home and watch National Geographic where they have to say the words "Evolution" and "Billy-uns of years ago" at least everly 4 minutes. 

I wouldn't expect anyone to believe in the teleportation device until I showed them evidence, it is an extraordinary claim so it would require extraordinary evidence. False claims of inventions are actually quite common in an attempt to get money to fund them. It is foolish to simply accept a new invention without at least getting a good explanation of how it works and an opportunity to test it yourself or have it tested by a trusted third party. The reaction of scientists when you told them about this invention would probably depend on how much they trust you, if they know you are someone who routinely buys into fantasies they are probably not going to be too excited unless you can actually show them the machine. If you are someone they trust wouldn't make this shit up they would be jumping up and down with enthusiasm demanding to see the cool new toy and brainstorming ways to use it the whole car ride over. 


The Theist
TheistardTroll
The Theist's picture
Posts: 217
Joined: 2012-03-09
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving, every little

Beyond Saving, every little bit of twisted logic you give is contradicted by the next. The only possible way you could come to any rational conclusion is to simply state that unless anyone agrees with you they are irrational, for whatever current justification you give for it. Which is impossible anyway considering the maze of contradictory applications. 


 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10140
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
The Theist wrote:Evolution

The Theist wrote:
Evolution isn't worth more than a passing rhetorical commentary,

Evolution is a fact, and chances are that our knowledge and understanding of it are the only reason you're alive and here to laughably claim it as false.
But I digress...

Quote:
How many remaining documents are there, that are incomplete, fabricated or incompatible with each other

All of them are incomplete, fabricated, or incompatible with each other.
Not to mention that they're all primitive works written by men in a time of near complete ignorance.

Therefore none of them are useful.

Quote:
break out the rusty old God of War.

Have fun. I'm killing zombies in Black Ops. You know zombies, jesus was one.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13235
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
The Theist wrote:Beyond

The Theist wrote:

Beyond Saving, every little bit of twisted logic you give is contradicted by the next. The only possible way you could come to any rational conclusion is to simply state that unless anyone agrees with you they are irrational, for whatever current justification you give for it. Which is impossible anyway considering the maze of contradictory applications. 

 

 

There is lots I could debate Beyond about, but if he has a problem with you, I will hedge my bets that he is on the right track.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 264
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
The Theist wrote:There is a

The Theist wrote:

There is a time for war and a time for peace. I am most capable of returning adversarial banter or respectful and thoughtful discourse. Let this be the later. Thanks for a thoughtful response.

Judaism was influenced heavily by Greek philosophy, beginning in earnest after Alexander the Great, though of course it's imperfections prior to that are honestly recorded in the Bible itself. Similarly even the early Christians cautioned against contrary influences. Paul warned of this using the Greek word mythous, later translated into the Latin fabulas. Myth. Fables. The Qur'an and the Book of Mormon were primitive, for a lack of a better word, and inaccurate interpretations of, to a greater or lesser extent, the Bible. The fall of the Roman empire brought about the dark ages, in which superstition and disease were  visited upon the human race like never before, but it has always been interesting to me that much of the traditions of, especially Christianity, that we know today, especially the skeptic, comes from the understanding of that time. For example, the firmament. Illustrations in Bibles and Bible dictionaries have the expanse of the heavens pictured as it was thought to have been at that time, a solid dome with sluice holes to allow rain in. This isn't at all what the writers of the Bible meant when using the Hebrew word raqia, but skeptics to this day assume the Bible represents this kind of thinking.

So Judaism was influenced by Greek philosophy (which implies it was made up). Christianity seems to suggest that these scriptures are still true. The Qu'ran seems to be selective acknowledgement of the bible, adding its own equally ridiculous word. The Book of Mormon was clearly made up, and while it claims to not refute the bible, it does add more logical fallacies to the whole thing then there were without it (such as Jesus living in the USA, and the Garden of Eden being in Missouri)

The Theist wrote:

A great deal of harm was done by the Church as well. Aside from the obvious intolerance of the Inquisition and Crusades there was also a great deal of confusion caused by their arrogant position having been so threatened by the growth of scientific knowledge. The atheist tends to judge the Bible in the light of this as well, unfairly, in my opinion.

Why is it unfair of us to read the bible without ridiculously contorting the content to fit with the world? Nobody writing the bible would have meant by it what modern interpretations suggest. This is a book that people attempt to live their lives by, and I believe that every atheist who points out the obvious lies, and obvious immoral verses, are only doing the world a service. Penn Jillette summed it up nicely "It's fair to say that the bible contains equal amounts of fact, history, and pizza". 

As far as the church and their arrogance, I think confusion is the wrong word. I'd content that as long as the church thought it could win any battle with emerging scientific knowledge, it attempted to suppress it, because the facts were indeed another blow to the apparently unalterable scriptures. There is no confusion there for me. It's as clear as day. 

The Theist wrote:

Pythagoras influenced Aristotle and Ptolemy who in turn influenced Aquinas, who influenced the church, the result being the geocentric concept opposed to Galileo's heliocentric concept. The Bible verses used were Ecclesiastes 1:5 and Psalm 104:5. In both of those cases figurative language is used by the Bible that is very similar to today, without contradiction with science. "The sun rises and sets." "The foundations of the earth."

The sun rising and setting isn't contradictory to common English, and how we speak. However, it is wholly contradictory to science. It is our planet that is moving in relation to the sun. Of course everything is in constant motion, being blown away from our universe's point of origin, but let's use an example of 2 cars. Car 1 has its cruise control set to 70. Car 2 has its cruise control off, and the driver is hyper-miling, speeding up before hills, letting off downhill, etc. The average speed is similar, but car 2 is passing, and getting passed, by car 1 several times. The bible verse is suggesting that the sun is car 2, and the earth is car 1, when reality dictates otherwise. That is completely wrong. The foundations of the earth...we don't need to go there. It also does say in another verse somewhere that the earth is suspended on nothing. Completely incoherent, and the only verses that seem to be right in retrospect, are because if you say enough things (some of which contradict) you will get a hit. This is tossing a coin and picking both heads and tails.

The Theist wrote:

Since then we have learned a great deal about the writings of the Bible, through archaeological discoveries, as well as the discoveries of many manuscripts which allow for a great deal more understanding of the collection of books and the cultures they include than ever before. A much greater understanding of the language.

Yes, yes we have. Archaeology has done much to the bible. We now know that many places in the old testament didn't even exist. We know that Nazareth could not have possibly had a temple, as all it had was a well. I find that to be a legitimate argument against the alleged Jesus of Nazareth, since the place where he was brought up (and in some accounts, born, but not in others), did not exist. 

The Theist wrote:

So when science estimates the age of the universe we now know the Bible doesn't disagree with it. But then again, in all actuality, our own understanding of the universe is still arguably in it's infant stage anyway. I can't see where an ignorance of the Bible, based primarily upon the highly questionable academia of higher criticism and a mentality that more reflects modern tradition based upon Greek philosophy and the superstitions of the dark age is a logical conclusion that theism is irrational.

You could content it doesn't disagree with it if you account for the general vagueness and errancy in the bible. But if you are to ask the question "how old is the Earth according to the bible" without factoring in facts concerning the actual age of the Universe, the number you get is somewhere around 6016 years old. Our understanding of the Universe is still in its early stages yes, but we know how old it is. The bible suggests that the age of all existence vs. the age of the earth is a matter of days. We know the Universe is roughly 3 times as old as the Earth (going by the standard 13.75 billion years and 4.5-4.6 billion years respectively).

You seem to suggest that everyone is on a mission to disprove the bible. That's not the case. We're on a mission to discover the truth, and the bible happens to have gotten it all wrong. That's all. Your divinely inspired book is 100% unspectacular. It is something that could have easily been written by humans a few thousand years ago, and clearly was just that. Even though you have your basic deists today, the idea of one god has its origins in scriptures that are clearly not true. Pretty simple. 

Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 706
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is onlineOnline
You need to take time to

The Theist wrote:

It strikes me odd that atheist, usually science minded and of the notion that humans are animals, find theism irrational. What exactly do you think is irrational about theism? If at all possible I would like to request than anyone responding would please, for this thread at least, do so in a manner more logical than emotional.

to understand these floks.

They don't believe there's a God because it cannot be proven, at least what is mistakenly thought to be a Christian God. It doesn't add up. and I agree with their assessment.

They look to the material sciences for answers, but material sciences only solve material problems.  Materialism is the problem and materialism  extends from a state of mind. Material sciences don't deal with the minds eye. It's a revolving mouse trap. One gets trapped on one side of the trap and think if it was on the other side things would be OK, but the other side is just another part of the trap. One side of the trap is the material, the other side is the mind. This is a world mental condition not Atheist. Money represents material (power over others in some cases) and is looked to to solve problems created by money. There can never be enough money to solve the money problem. If everyone had a million bucks, a million bucks wouldn't be worth anything. It's the semi-rarity of money that produces it's worth. A materialist mind cannot solve the problem because the materialist mind is already the problem not the material. Materialism is a religion of the belief in material and holds material to be the meaning of life and eventually the material is valued over the lives of others. There's nothing wrong with that but it's the central cause of the worlds social problems.

  As far as animal is concerned---welcome to the world. You very likely are as animalistic as they/me/anyone. If you believe in competition then you believe in animalism, as competition is an animal trait among a few others. Don't blame the Atheist because they didn't invent this system and are a victim of it the same as you and I. Floks a few 1000 years ago are to blame. we simply inherited this deal.

  Now, You're asking for logic. Who's logic do you want to use. If we use the Popes logic we end up eggzackly where we are. You need to understand that you have to use logic on your side also. The Menza society is a group of floks that have the highest IQ of any. Only 2% of the geneises get to be members of that bunch. You'll notice---they haven't solved the worlds problems, and aren't about to, and they deal exclusively in ---logic. Not logical is it. So, what's to be done about this logic thing. If the Pope is a leader and he can't solve the problem, logic could mean---floks like him are the problem. The Pope is a predator just like everyone else. He's a member of what my gang refer to as "the predator class". who are. the people in government, religious leaders, industrial leaders, financial leaders. How can anyo0ne prove that the "present" God of the world is a logical entity, when the leaders of the world are it's chief hypocrites. They all clain to believe and follow some God or another. It's a real problem isn't it.

 

 

The only possible thing the world could need saving from are those running it.


Zaq
atheist
Zaq's picture
Posts: 269
Joined: 2008-12-24
User is offlineOffline
So far, all precisely

So far, all precisely formulated god hypotheses I have ever encountered have been refuted by overwhelming evidence.  Furthermore, many self-proclaimed theists insist that this is true for their god hypothesis and yet they also insist that we should believe it anyway.

Questions for Theists:
http://silverskeptic.blogspot.com/2011/03/consistent-standards.html

I'm a bit of a lurker. Every now and then I will come out of my cave with a flurry of activity. Then the Ph.D. program calls and I must fall back to the shadows.