Questions for Atheist visitors

Supenmanu
Theist
Posts: 12
Joined: 2007-04-22
User is offlineOffline
Questions for Atheist visitors

Okay, first off, i am not a Christian, and i don't believe in Religions... but i am not oppossed to them either. So there are two main things i was wondering about upon discovering the RRS. First: why are you trying to convert other people to atheism? Second: why do you call yourself "rational" and declare theists as irrational? I mean on what scientific basis do you declare yourself "rational". My understanding was allways that there was no scientific evidence based on experiments that could objectively disproof the existence of any Gods and any higher beings. Only if you have such proof, could you call your disbelief in Gods  "rational". Otherwise your disbelive is merely a "believe".

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Well there's a really simple

Well there's a really simple law that shows god is impossible. The law of conservation: Matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed. This law has been tested to redundancy, and much of our understanding of reality is based on it.

I would also suggest you read some of todangsts essays on the incoherancy of the terms god and supernatural.

http://www.rationalresponders.com/god_is_an_incoherent_term

http://www.rationalresponders.com/supernatural_and_immaterial_are_broken_concepts

As to why we want people to stop believing in fairy tales, said fairy tales are responsible for 90%+ of the conflicts of today, and most of those of yesterday as well. Removing the most common tool of war and immorality can only better the species.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
We've answered this basic

We've answered this basic question billions of times. When there is no evidence either way, the logical thing to do is not believe. There is no evidence for or against the Flying Spaghetti Monster either. As to why we oppose religion, it is because of how the religious right always is trying to force it on us - the Christian War on Science, the anti-choice movement, discrimination against women and homosexuals, etc.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


American Atheist
American Atheist's picture
Posts: 1331
Joined: 2006-09-03
User is offlineOffline
Man, I'm tired of answer

Man, I'm tired of answering the same questions. 

Quote:
First: why are you trying to convert other people to atheism?

Atheism is not a religion. So the word "convert" is not accurate.

I consider myself an agnostic-atheist. I'd like to believe that there is a god. But there is no evidence for it.

 

Quote:
Second: why do you call yourself "rational" and declare theists as irrational? I mean on what scientific basis do you declare yourself "rational".

Well, I can't call somebody irrational if they believe that the movie Jurassic Park is a documentary?

 

Quote:
Only if you have such proof, could you call your disbelief in Gods "rational". Otherwise your disbelive is merely a "believe".

 LOL! I need proof for something that does not exist?

Anyway, as I've told somebody else on this site...if you have to ask questions like this: Then maybe this site isn't for you. 


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
Please peruse these threads

Please peruse these threads and you will see these questions answered many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many.... times.

Supenmanu wrote:
First: why are you trying to convert other people to atheism?

I think many people are not here to actively "convert", they are here to discuss. If someone would leave their religion it would be more of a de-conversion anyhow.

Supenmanu wrote:
Second: why do you call yourself "rational" and declare theists as irrational? I mean on what scientific basis do you declare yourself "rational".

First can you tell me where the rationality lies with beliefs in magic sky daddies, talking snakes, creating people out of dirt, worldwide flood, talking burning bushes, angels, dragons, unicorns, virgin human births, zombies (i.e. resurrected dead), fully god fully man, eternal salvation, I could go on and and on. Start with those issues first.

Supenmanu wrote:
My understanding was allways that there was no scientific evidence based on experiments that could objectively disproof the existence of any Gods and any higher beings.

For one thing the burden of proof that gods exist lies with the person making such claims. It is not up to us to prove he does not, and so far I have NEVER seen any amount of evidence of religious superhero claims.

Supenmanu wrote:
Only if you have such proof, could you call your disbelief in Gods "rational".

Wrong! If you have proof OF a god you can call your belief rational, otherwise it is without evidence and ergo, irrational!

Supenmanu wrote:
Otherwise your disbelive is merely a "believe".

Wrong again, it is merely DISBELIEF. Nothing more.

Keep reading this message board and you will see probably the only thing all atheists have in common is a LACK of belief in god/gods. There is not a doctrine or dogma, just a lack of IRRATIONAL belief in god/gods.

{Edit for clarity}


James Cizuz
James Cizuz's picture
Posts: 261
Joined: 2007-02-11
User is offlineOffline
To prove something does not

To prove something does not exist, you try to prove it does. If no proof is found for set item or idea, rationally you do not believe. Doesn't mean 100% it does not exist, it simply means for evidence supplied it does not. The burden of proof does not depend on the non-believer, our proof already exist. The burden to prove something exists depend on the believer. Our proof is there is not proof for him.

 

As someone already said, the laws of conservation do lead to no god. There is other ways, such as the infinity-free will complex, or emotion complex, which simply states if god has free will, and lived for an eternity, he would of destoried himself. Only a god with no free will could exist. Other then that, all religions are proven false just by testing their claims, it does not mean god doesn't exist, just not there god.

 

It's not a belief. To believe in something with no evidence is faith, or a better word.. Hope. To not believe because there is no evidence, is rational until said evidence is shown to exist. 

"When I die I shall be content to vanish into nothingness.... No show, however good, could conceivably be good forever.... I do not believe in immortality, and have no desire for it." ~H.L. Mencken

Thank god i'm a atheist!


JCE
Bronze Member
JCE's picture
Posts: 1219
Joined: 2007-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Supenmanu wrote: Okay,

Supenmanu wrote:

Okay, first off, i am not a Christian, and i don't believe in Religions...

Good!

Supenmanu wrote:
but i am not oppossed to them either. So there are two main things i was wondering about upon discovering the RRS. First: why are you trying to convert other people to atheism?

Theists come here trying to convert us. As someone else said, those that are here have been de-converted.  Atheism is not a religion.

Supenmanu wrote:
Second: why do you call yourself "rational" and declare theists as irrational?

Would you call someone who fervently believes in Santa rational?

Supenmanu wrote:
I mean on what scientific basis do you declare yourself "rational". My understanding was allways that there was no scientific evidence based on experiments that could objectively disproof the existence of any Gods and any higher beings.

I would call this a reality check, but there are others on this site that can explain it more brilliantly than I.

Supenmanu wrote:
Only if you have such proof, could you call your disbelief in Gods "rational". Otherwise your disbelive is merely a "believe".

No, non-belief in a god is not the same as believing in something else. It is just non-belief.

Welcome! Please feel free to check out some of the threads that address your questions. Others have asked these same things and you will find this is an excellent place to get answers to your questions. Here is a question for you: You state that you are not a christian nor do you believe in religions...may I ask what you do believe? This may help us understand the basis of your questions.


Supenmanu
Theist
Posts: 12
Joined: 2007-04-22
User is offlineOffline
So many replies... and so

So many replies... and so little factual evidence... First how does the law of conservation disproof the existence of God? You say God could not exist because he isn't made up of matter? What if he is? You say God could not have created man from nothing? But most religous texts say that God simply transformed other matter like the earth on the ground into man. So that does not go against the  law of conservation at all. Besides is the law of conservation or any other scientific law absolute? No! Modern Science recognizes the existence of something called "time-space". So whatever scientific law you may come up with, at best it only holds for this present time-space we are in, and might not hold for other time-spaces. If you say i can only see this time-space so i assume all other time-spaces will look exactly the same and have the same physical laws... than that is a "believe" and not even a "rational" believe. (Although i allready said that i respect the believe of any religions... including yours... and yes there are a LOT of things in the RRS that remind me of a religion).

 The other thing is that you said you discriminate against other religions because other religions abuse their religion to commit violence. That is true... but you have to keep in mind those people  or those Religions are ABUSING, twisting around, and taking out of context their original Scriptures. For example if you use the Bible to examine the behaviour of Bernardo Gui or use the Koran to examine the behaviour of Osama Bin Laden, then you would hardly come to the conclusion that they where good followers of those scriptures.

 

 While most of you believe in a "scripture" called "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life". It is also the same book that some other atheist religions like the National Socialists and the Communists believe in. Now you said something like 90% of the deaths now and in the last centurary where caused by people believing in God. I simple have to say this, and it is so obvious that no one will disagree with me: NO. The most deaths now and in the last 100 years where brought about by Communists and National Socialists. According to the "Black Book of Communism" the Communist Party alone slaughtered at least 100 million people. And most of their victims where precisly religious believers. Yet Nazis and commies have done nothing else but putting your afore mentioned "scripture" into action.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Please read before you spew

Please read before you spew forth idiocy that has been posted many times before. Nazis were not atheists - why did they have "Gott Mitt Uns" on the SS belt buckles, and why did Hitler say he was only finishing what Jesus started? Neither killed for atheism. Calling "The Origin of Species" scripture is one of the dumbest things i ever heard in my life - evolution is backed by scientific evidence and makes no claims about an afterlife, morality, etc.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
Supenmanu wrote: So many

Supenmanu wrote:

So many replies... and so little factual evidence... First how does the law of conservation disproof the existence of God? You say God could not exist because he isn't made up of matter? What if he is? You say God could not have created man from nothing? But most religous texts say that God simply transformed other matter like the earth on the ground into man. So that does not go against the law of conservation at all. Besides is the law of conservation or any other scientific law absolute? No! Modern Science recognizes the existence of something called "time-space". So whatever scientific law you may come up with, at best it only holds for this present time-space we are in, and might not hold for other time-spaces. If you say i can only see this time-space so i assume all other time-spaces will look exactly the same and have the same physical laws... than that is a "believe" and not even a "rational" believe. (Although i allready said that i respect the believe of any religions... including yours... and yes there are a LOT of things in the RRS that remind me of a religion).

The other thing is that you said you discriminate against other religions because other religions abuse their religion to commit violence. That is true... but you have to keep in mind those people or those Religions are ABUSING, twisting around, and taking out of context their original Scriptures. For example if you use the Bible to examine the behaviour of Bernardo Gui or use the Koran to examine the behaviour of Osama Bin Laden, then you would hardly come to the conclusion that they where good followers of those scriptures.

 

While most of you believe in a "scripture" called "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life". It is also the same book that some other atheist religions like the National Socialists and the Communists believe in. Now you said something like 90% of the deaths now and in the last centurary where caused by people believing in God. I simple have to say this, and it is so obvious that no one will disagree with me: NO. The most deaths now and in the last 100 years where brought about by Communists and National Socialists. According to the "Black Book of Communism" the Communist Party alone slaughtered at least 100 million people. And most of their victims where precisly religious believers. Yet Nazis and commies have done nothing else but putting your afore mentioned "scripture" into action.

436 words without saying a damn thing. You only addressed a few points made and addressed them very poorly to boot. 


American Atheist
American Atheist's picture
Posts: 1331
Joined: 2006-09-03
User is offlineOffline
For a guy who isn't opposed

For a guy who isn't opposed to religions, he acts like the RRS is one...then bashes it.


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
BGH wrote: Supenmanu

BGH wrote:

Supenmanu wrote:
Second: why do you call yourself "rational" and declare theists as irrational? I mean on what scientific basis do you declare yourself "rational".

First can you tell me where the rationality lies with beliefs in magic sky daddies, talking snakes, creating people out of dirt, worldwide flood, talking burning bushes, angels, dragons, unicorns, virgin human births, zombies (i.e. resurrected dead), fully go fully man, eternal salvation, I could god on and and on. Start with those issues first.

Respond to this, then we can have a rational discussion. 


Maragon
Maragon's picture
Posts: 351
Joined: 2007-04-01
User is offlineOffline
He called Darwin

He called Darwin scripture?

Okay, now just tell us Dawkins is our prophet, bananas are perfect and something about a watch and we can get on with our day.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Supenmanu wrote: So many

Supenmanu wrote:
So many replies... and so little factual evidence... First how does the law of conservation disproof the existence of God? You say God could not exist because he isn't made up of matter?

No. God theories suggest god created everything, which the law ridicules. What else is there for a god to be?

Supenmanu wrote:
What if he is? You say God could not have created man from nothing?

The laws of physics say that. I'm just a messenger.

Supenmanu wrote:
But most religous texts say that God simply transformed other matter like the earth on the ground into man.

Those religious texts suggest god created the earth in the first place.

Supenmanu wrote:
So that does not go against the  law of conservation at all.

Obviously it does.

Supenmanu wrote:
Besides is the law of conservation or any other scientific law absolute? No!

Prove it. Create matter. Or energy. Or destroy it. Go ahead, you'll win the nobel prize and be remembered for all time. You will have proved god. Plenty of motivation.

Supenmanu wrote:
Modern Science recognizes the existence of something called "time-space".

Space time is merely the dimensions with which we measure things. Height, length, width, and time.

Supenmanu wrote:
So whatever scientific law you may come up with, at best it only holds for this present time-space we are in, and might not hold for other time-spaces.

Now you have to prove there are other space/time realities as well. Good luck. You're making a lot of baseless assertions and suggestions without any logic or reason.

Supenmanu wrote:
If you say i can only see this time-space so i assume all other time-spaces will look exactly the same and have the same physical laws... than that is a "believe" and not even a "rational" believe. (Although i allready said that i respect the believe of any religions... including yours... and yes there are a LOT of things in the RRS that remind me of a religion).

Baseless assertions and ad hominem attacks. You sure fit the profile of a theist. Are you sure you aren't one?

Supenmanu wrote:
The other thing is that you said you discriminate against other religions because other religions abuse their religion to commit violence. That is true... but you have to keep in mind those people  or those Religions are ABUSING, twisting around, and taking out of context their original Scriptures.

No they aren't. The bible tells people to kill. So does the quran. Have you even read their holy books?

Supenmanu wrote:
For example if you use the Bible to examine the behaviour of Bernardo Gui or use the Koran to examine the behaviour of Osama Bin Laden, then you would hardly come to the conclusion that they where good followers of those scriptures.

I don't know who Bernardo is and haven't read the quran, so I can't answer this definitively. But it is a moot point either way.

Supenmanu wrote:
 While most of you believe in a "scripture" called " The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life". It is also the same book that some other atheist religions like the National Socialists and the Communists believe in.

You're spouting pure horse manure now. Evolution is proven fact. Go back to grade school.

Supenmanu wrote:
Now you said something like 90% of the deaths now and in the last centurary where caused by people believing in God. I simple have to say this, and it is so obvious that no one will disagree with me: NO.

YES.

Supenmanu wrote:
The most deaths now and in the last 100 years where brought about by Communists and National Socialists.

LIAR. I'm going to ignore the rest of your dribble. You've proven yourself a complete moron and liar, and I'll not waste my time with you further.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Supenmanu
Theist
Posts: 12
Joined: 2007-04-22
User is offlineOffline
Sorry but you are saying

Sorry but you are saying this to the wrong guy. As i am German and many of my friends where Holocaust survivors. Did Jesus persecute Jews? No. Then even if your claim is true, Hitler did not at all follow what Jesus did. But your claim isn't even true.  So why don't you show me a reference prooving that "Hitler was just following what Jesus started"? Can't find one? Well i can find one where he says the opposite: "Ich glaube keine Sekunde an eine Schilderung römischer Caesaren wie sie uns ueberliefert ist. Nie hat Nero Rom angezuendet, das haben die Christen, die Bolschewiken gemacht." Adolf Hitler am 25 Oktober 1941

So not only did Hitler regard Christians in this speach as the enemy, but he even used the same lies to persecute them as Nero did. And so he did. The requirement for ANY religion durring the Nazis was that FIRST you had to belief in Hitler, and THEN in God. If you refused to do that, you would be put in Labor Camps. The most famous example of this is Pastor Niemoeller.

 

""The Origin of Species" scripture is one of the dumbest things i ever heard in my life (..) and makes no claims about an afterlife, morality, etc."

 Yes i totaly agree (-: and precisley because it says nothing about morality, regards humans as a form of animals, and basicly says that violence in human society in necesarry for developement of society and evolution... that is why it is so dangerous and could cause all the boodshed of the Nazis and Commies.


Supenmanu
Theist
Posts: 12
Joined: 2007-04-22
User is offlineOffline
So if you don't belive me

So if you don't belive me fine. If i don't belive you, then please also accept that. I said what i wanted to say, and you said what you wanted to say. Please stop replying to it now... It is allready at a point where i don't have time to reply to all future comments, and besides if this thread becomes 10 miles long, no one will read it anymore.


JCE
Bronze Member
JCE's picture
Posts: 1219
Joined: 2007-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Awww, damnit! I hate when

Awww, damnit! I hate when I am duped into thinking someone has come on this forum wanting to engage in rational discussion and then pukes a bunch of garbage all over the place while failing to answer any direct questions or providing proof of their statements.

 

Atheism is NOT a religion; atheism is NOT a political party.

 

(Where is Iruka's head-banging icon when I need it?)

[Moderator's Edit:   <--here ya go]


Maragon
Maragon's picture
Posts: 351
Joined: 2007-04-01
User is offlineOffline
"violence in human society

"violence in human society in necesarry for developement of society and evolution... that is why it is so dangerous and could cause all the boodshed of the Nazis and Commies."

 

That's a very common, de-bunked myth about the nature of natural selection. It doesn't always, or even often have anything to do with violence, neither does the term 'survival of the fittest'. 


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
Supenmanu wrote:

Supenmanu wrote:
So if you don't belive me fine. If i don't belive you, then please also accept that. I said what i wanted to say, and you said what you wanted to say. Please stop replying to it now... It is allready at a point where i don't have time to reply to all future comments, and besides if this thread becomes 10 miles long, no one will read it anymore.

So you have no refutations.... you are done responding with nothing.... you can't respond so you quit....

You started this jackass thread, you could at least be willing to stand up and defend what you say. You are already bordering on violating the trolling rules. You may want to read the rules of the board HERE before you continue.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
I think this thread should

I think this thread should get moved to Trollville. The Origin of Species doesn't say violence is necessary in human society. And the fact it doesn't address morality doesn't make it dangerous. That's absolute drivel. Most books don't - that is not what science is for. If your insane rant was correct all science books (as well as math, much fiction, art, etc) would be dangerous!

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


AmericanIdle
Posts: 414
Joined: 2007-03-16
User is offlineOffline
Supenmanu wrote: Okay,

Supenmanu wrote:

Okay, first off, i am not a Christian, and i don't believe in Religions... 

That's great.  Thank you for not being yet another of those dishonest theists who come to these sites claiming to be "not a christian" or "atheist" or "agnostic" or "allegedly impartial".  Starting off w/ dishonesty of this sort always tends to impeach the message of morality the theist mistakenly believes he has to impart.  So again, thank you for not lying to yourself or us.  Appreciate it.

Quote:
  My understanding was allways that there was no scientific evidence based on experiments that could objectively disproof the existence of any Gods and any higher beings. Only if you have such proof, could you call your disbelief in Gods  "rational".

- I cannot definitively disprove that Santa Claus exists should I base my behavior and world view on his yearly messianic visits ?  Is that rational to you?

 See, how it works is.....when you make a wild claim, you have the responsibility to provide the proof for your wild claim.

The burden of proof is not on the person discounting the wild claim.  They are just pointing out the obvious.

"In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
George Orwell


Supenmanu
Theist
Posts: 12
Joined: 2007-04-22
User is offlineOffline
Okay... i kinda said i

Okay... i kinda said i wouldn't comment anymore... but since that isn't really on the issue, i wanna set two things straight. First i didn't lie when i said that i don't believe in Religions, and  it is YOU guys who labeled me "theist". In your case that really is a label like "attention the following post comes from an enemy of the state,  immedeatly dismiss it and attack" (-:   (just teasing)
 The other thing is... how come none of you americans think that Santa Claus exists? I mean really in Germany i learned in preeschool that St. Nikolaus (Nikolaus is the German word for Santa Claus) is a Christian Saint and was a bishop who lived in turkey around the 4. century and helped many poor Childen. He was very rich, but gave all of his wealth to the poor. During the persecution of christians in the year 310 he was captured and tortured. Now of course whether or not you believe he still exists depends on whether or not you believe in an afterlife and whether or not you beliefe in Saints. Yet that he existed is a fact (In Bari you can even visit his coffin).

"See, how it works is.....when you make a wild claim, you have the responsibility to provide the proof for your wild claim." Right... absolutely... I did not claim Gods exist. But neither did i claim that they don't exist... yet basicly the RRS is claiming that. Otherwise why would you call yourself "rational" and theists "delusional"?


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
When we say "Santa Claus"

When we say "Santa Claus" we're not talking about a bishop who lived centuries ago, we mean the fat guy in the red suit who lives at the North pole and brings presents to Children on December 25th every year.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


James Cizuz
James Cizuz's picture
Posts: 261
Joined: 2007-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Universal rule of thumb. No

Universal rule of thumb. No proof = non-existence until said proof is provided. The proof is always on the claimant.

 

Theists believe in something with no proof or evidence, which takes a lot of delusion, or faith as they call it. They claim god exists, they say we can not change them because we need to prove god does not exist, which is not the case. We only claim god does not exist, until further notice or evidence provided. 

 

Myself I am an agnostic-atheist, I do not claim absolute knowledge god does not exist, however with the evidence towards him being zero, in all likely-hood he does not. Still could, but it's very delusional to take the claim that makes you feel better. 

"When I die I shall be content to vanish into nothingness.... No show, however good, could conceivably be good forever.... I do not believe in immortality, and have no desire for it." ~H.L. Mencken

Thank god i'm a atheist!


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
I wouldn't claim absolute

I wouldn't claim absolute knowledge that NO god exists, but I would claim it that the Christian God doesn't exist (Thank the FSM!)

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


JCE
Bronze Member
JCE's picture
Posts: 1219
Joined: 2007-03-20
User is offlineOffline
Supenmanu wrote: Okay... i

Supenmanu wrote:

Okay... i kinda said i wouldn't comment anymore... but since that isn't really on the issue, i wanna set two things straight. First i didn't lie when i said that i don't believe in Religions, and it is YOU guys who labeled me "theist". In your case that really is a label like "attention the following post comes from an enemy of the state, immedeatly dismiss it and attack" (-: (just teasing)
The other thing is... how come none of you americans think that Santa Claus exists? I mean really in Germany i learned in preeschool that St. Nikolaus (Nikolaus is the German word for Santa Claus) is a Christian Saint and was a bishop who lived in turkey around the 4. century and helped many poor Childen. He was very rich, but gave all of his wealth to the poor. During the persecution of christians in the year 310 he was captured and tortured. Now of course whether or not you believe he still exists depends on whether or not you believe in an afterlife and whether or not you beliefe in Saints. Yet that he existed is a fact (In Bari you can even visit his coffin).

"See, how it works is.....when you make a wild claim, you have the responsibility to provide the proof for your wild claim." Right... absolutely... I did not claim Gods exist. But neither did i claim that they don't exist... yet basicly the RRS is claiming that. Otherwise why would you call yourself "rational" and theists "delusional"?

 

So...you do believe Santa showed up at your house this past December 25th and left presents?  Okay.   Well.  Perhaps you should look for the anti-Santa website. 


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2840
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Supenmanu wrote: So many

Supenmanu wrote:

So many replies... and so little factual evidence... 

Yet you were provided with two of my essays as to why theism is irrational, so this can only be taken a lie.

Please don't lie on our boards.

By the way, it's not that theists are irrational, it is that theism is irrational. Everyone on earth holds to irrational thoughts, there are no totally rational people.  

"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'


Icebergin
Icebergin's picture
Posts: 121
Joined: 2007-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Just wanted to add that

Just wanted to add that this entire thread could have been taken care of if that sticky up there in all caps was read. You know the one that says "THEISM IS IRRATIONAL, THE VIEWS OF OUR COMMUNITY".

 I'm just sayin'...

YOU shut the fuck up! WE'LL save America!


Supenmanu
Theist
Posts: 12
Joined: 2007-04-22
User is offlineOffline
"No proof = non-existence

"No proof = non-existence until said proof is provided. The proof is always on the claimant." Darwin didn't proof his Theory of Evolution. He even repeatedly doubted it and wrote those doubts into his book. Even later generations where unably to provide experimental proof. In order to proof Evolution you would have to proof by experiement that mutations in the DNA can be past down to the  mitochondria DNA of the offspring and even over several generations do not revert to their orignal state. Even though hundreds of thousends of such experiments have been made, none of them had ever had that outcome. Yet still you believe in it. and actually the saying goes "innocent untill prooven guilty" But you judge non-believers in Darwin as "irrational", "having a mind dissorder", "crazy and dangerous". Yet you cannot proove them to be wrong, so actually you use "guilty untill prooven innocent".


GlamourKat
GlamourKat's picture
Posts: 461
Joined: 2006-08-17
User is offlineOffline
Every time this "you

Every time this "you worship science" thing comes up, I have to laugh.

I never post about it, but I think I've finally had enough. I'm not very science minded. In fact, my atheism has little to nothing to do with any sort of faith in science. I'm usually quite disdainful of most scientific studies that come out. "This food is good for you, oh wait, we messed up, its actualy bad for you, so on and so forth." I truly hate junk science.

But just because I don't fully understand molecular biology, or string theory, or chemistry, doesn't mean I'm just going to go, "well those explanations make no sense to me and can't be proven because I don't get them, so I'll just believe in something else that's easier to believe because there's no pesky science in it." 

This faith in Darwin thing is so retardedly ridiculous, I can't even express how much. Sure, we have some people who are hardcore "believers in science" here, but how that equates to a religion I don't see. Scripture is by it's nature unquestionable and considered "perfect" already. Science, in itself, is a long ongoing process of questioning the reality around us. Testing and retesting, and attempting to dis-prove previous theories, and sometimes proving them. The best scientists are the ones who question authority and prove something new. People who question the previous theories wouldn't make very good priests I think. Undecided

I don't need to believe in black holes or the big bang to not have a belief in any gods. 


BenfromCanada
atheist
BenfromCanada's picture
Posts: 811
Joined: 2006-08-31
User is offlineOffline
Supenmanu wrote:

Supenmanu wrote:

First: why are you trying to convert other people to atheism?

I don't really care, I'm just putting my views out there, and hoping no one pushes their retarded views on others.

Supenmanu wrote:
Second: why do you call yourself "rational" and declare theists as irrational? I mean on what scientific basis do you declare yourself "rational". My understanding was allways that there was no scientific evidence based on experiments that could objectively disproof the existence of any Gods and any higher beings. Only if you have such proof, could you call your disbelief in Gods "rational". Otherwise your disbelive is merely a "believe".

You don't need science to prove something rational. Logically speaking, you can't prove something does not exist. But you must prove something exists, and no tests have been done that proved the existence of any deity, nor that any humans who have declared themselves deities actually were. To believe things that have no credible evidence backing them is irrational.

Supenmanu wrote:

While most of you believe in a "scripture" called "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life". It is also the same book that some other atheist religions like the National Socialists and the Communists believe in. Now you said something like 90% of the deaths now and in the last centurary where caused by people believing in God. I simple have to say this, and it is so obvious that no one will disagree with me: NO. The most deaths now and in the last 100 years where brought about by Communists and National Socialists. According to the "Black Book of Communism" the Communist Party alone slaughtered at least 100 million people. And most of their victims where precisly religious believers. Yet Nazis and commies have done nothing else but putting your afore mentioned "scripture" into action.

First off, to call "The Origin of Species" holy scripture is plain stupid. Why not "A Brief History of Time"? As for the phrase "atheistic religions"...I'd call National Socialism, Communism, Objectivism, etc. pseudo-religions. In fact, they ARE called that, because, despite having no official creator deity, they share all the characteristics of religion.

That said, I think "natural causes" have killed more in the last 100 years than Nazism and Communism combined. Plus the oft stated fact that Hitler was Catholic...and the Mexican revolutionaries were religious too, as well as communist. And Kim Il Sung, another communist, did start his own religion (Juche Sasang). Hell, so did the Nazi party! They began a branch of christianity called "Positive Christianity".

an image of their cross.

Supenmanu wrote:

"No proof = non-existence until said proof is provided. The proof is always on the claimant." Darwin didn't proof his Theory of Evolution. He even repeatedly doubted it and wrote those doubts into his book. Even later generations where unably to provide experimental proof. In order to proof Evolution you would have to proof by experiement that mutations in the DNA can be past down to the mitochondria DNA of the offspring and even over several generations do not revert to their orignal state. Even though hundreds of thousends of such experiments have been made, none of them had ever had that outcome. Yet still you believe in it. and actually the saying goes "innocent untill prooven guilty" But you judge non-believers in Darwin as "irrational", "having a mind dissorder", "crazy and dangerous". Yet you cannot proove them to be wrong, so actually you use "guilty untill prooven innocent".

As to the doubts Darwin had: Prove this.

As to the "lack of experimental proof": This is a blatant falsity. I'll provide citations when/if you do.

As to the "guilty until proven innocent" part: Evolutionists have science on their side, Creationists have ancient books on theirs. Science is repeatedly tested and revised, ancient books aren't, and if they're revised, it's never in the interest of truth.


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Supenmanu wrote: "No proof

Supenmanu wrote:

"No proof = non-existence until said proof is provided. The proof is always on the claimant." Darwin didn't proof his Theory of Evolution. He even repeatedly doubted it and wrote those doubts into his book. Even later generations where unably to provide experimental proof. In order to proof Evolution you would have to proof by experiement that mutations in the DNA can be past down to the mitochondria DNA of the offspring and even over several generations do not revert to their orignal state. Even though hundreds of thousends of such experiments have been made, none of them had ever had that outcome. Yet still you believe in it. and actually the saying goes "innocent untill prooven guilty" But you judge non-believers in Darwin as "irrational", "having a mind dissorder", "crazy and dangerous". Yet you cannot proove them to be wrong, so actually you use "guilty untill prooven innocent".

Evolution is a scientifically established fact. You must stop believing the lies you are being told and read up on the subject. 

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


Supenmanu
Theist
Posts: 12
Joined: 2007-04-22
User is offlineOffline
well than why don't you show

well than why don't you show me the reference i requested?


BenfromCanada
atheist
BenfromCanada's picture
Posts: 811
Joined: 2006-08-31
User is offlineOffline
Supenmanu wrote: well than

Supenmanu wrote:
well than why don't you show me the reference i requested?
You first


Supenmanu
Theist
Posts: 12
Joined: 2007-04-22
User is offlineOffline
I said: "Darwin didn't

I said: "Darwin didn't proof his Theory of Evolution. He even repeatedly doubted it and wrote those doubts into his book. Even later generations where unably to provide experimental proof. In order to proof Evolution you would have to proof by experiement that mutations in the DNA can be past down to the mitochondria DNA of the offspring and even over several generations do not revert to their orignal state. Even though hundreds of thousends of such experiments have been made, none of them had ever had that outcome. Yet still you believe in it"

 To which you only replied: "Evolution is a scientifically established fact. You must stop believing the lies you are being told"

Since i you did not give any reference as to the evidence on which you came to this conclusion, and particularly where unable to show me the reference regarding the existence of scientifc experiments prooving that mutations in the DNA can be past down to the mitochondria DNA of the offspring and even over several generations do not revert to their orignal state. I requested that you show me such reference, or else your statement cannot be seen valid. Yet you only replied: "You first"

 Frankly i do not understand what you mean by that, since the only statement i made was that you guys are unable to show me any reference to experiments prooving "that mutations in the DNA can be past down to the mitochondria DNA of the offspring and even over several generations do not revert to their orignal state."

 So there is a paradox here. You say you won't reference  me such proof until i reference proof showing that you are unable to show me that proof? 


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I give you nylon: Nylon:

I give you nylon:

Nylon: Fabricated substance. Invented in the 1930's. Does not exist in nature.

In 1975, bacteria were discovered that had evolved to consume this polymer that didn't exist until the 1930's.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


BenfromCanada
atheist
BenfromCanada's picture
Posts: 811
Joined: 2006-08-31
User is offlineOffline
Supenmanu wrote: I said:

Supenmanu wrote:

I said: "Darwin didn't proof his Theory of Evolution. He even repeatedly doubted it and wrote those doubts into his book. Even later generations where unably to provide experimental proof. In order to proof Evolution you would have to proof by experiement that mutations in the DNA can be past down to the mitochondria DNA of the offspring and even over several generations do not revert to their orignal state. Even though hundreds of thousends of such experiments have been made, none of them had ever had that outcome. Yet still you believe in it"

To which you only replied: "Evolution is a scientifically established fact. You must stop believing the lies you are being told"

Since i you did not give any reference as to the evidence on which you came to this conclusion, and particularly where unable to show me the reference regarding the existence of scientifc experiments prooving that mutations in the DNA can be past down to the mitochondria DNA of the offspring and even over several generations do not revert to their orignal state. I requested that you show me such reference, or else your statement cannot be seen valid. Yet you only replied: "You first"

Frankly i do not understand what you mean by that, since the only statement i made was that you guys are unable to show me any reference to experiments prooving "that mutations in the DNA can be past down to the mitochondria DNA of the offspring and even over several generations do not revert to their orignal state."

So there is a paradox here. You say you won't reference me such proof until i reference proof showing that you are unable to show me that proof?

Superman: I believe in matching evidence for evidence. You made a claim without citation, I countered it with a claim without citation. Your claim without citation matches mine. So, you need to show a reliable source that supports your claim, then I can refute that source with one of my own. Otherwise, I have no proof you're not making it up.


James Cizuz
James Cizuz's picture
Posts: 261
Joined: 2007-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Supenmanu wrote: "No proof

Supenmanu wrote:

"No proof = non-existence until said proof is provided. The proof is always on the claimant." Darwin didn't proof his Theory of Evolution. He even repeatedly doubted it and wrote those doubts into his book. Even later generations where unably to provide experimental proof. In order to proof Evolution you would have to proof by experiement that mutations in the DNA can be past down to the mitochondria DNA of the offspring and even over several generations do not revert to their orignal state. Even though hundreds of thousends of such experiments have been made, none of them had ever had that outcome. Yet still you believe in it. and actually the saying goes "innocent untill prooven guilty" But you judge non-believers in Darwin as "irrational", "having a mind dissorder", "crazy and dangerous". Yet you cannot proove them to be wrong, so actually you use "guilty untill prooven innocent".

Actually, darwin supplied, and based evolution on what he observed. It was not a claim, just an observation and hypothesis. Later, after his death and on-words the people who then claimed evolution to be true looked for more evidence then what was already supplied. It became a theory, now it regarded as a fact due to mountains of evidence. If darwin lived now, and first let out his hypothesis, I would regard it as false until proven true. However since the theory was refined and proven, I do not have to, since I can say it's fact because it was proven fact.

 

However the bible has no reproducable, retestable evidence, nor does any other holy text. Nor does any god claim, resulting in no proof at all. People like you did not even bother, or take a miniute out of the day to check on your claims, against our facts. You simply deny what you don't want to believe, even if it was proven.

 

Btw, should this not be in trollsville by now? 

"When I die I shall be content to vanish into nothingness.... No show, however good, could conceivably be good forever.... I do not believe in immortality, and have no desire for it." ~H.L. Mencken

Thank god i'm a atheist!