When a religious person speaks you resort to trash taking and expounding your point with profanity.

Thats whats scary. The hate starts with you and with each word you speak in an attempt to prove their is no god you get more and more flagrantly angry and violent.

BrotherAlpah said:

Goddamnit! What is wrong with you?

Are you really this fucking stupid? And I’m asking that as a serious question.

No this is scary.

“My response to you is your own response to me.”

You realize we don’t use the same definition of proof. I use proof in the normal sense, you use it in a offensive sense. You use it as a weapon. ‘I demand 100% proof and since you can’t give it, I’m right. Ha ha ha. Ha ha. Ha.’

I use proof to mean, “Evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Something you could use to convince a jury.”

But these very little since you’ve admitted you can prove your claims.

Speaking which…

You are a very confused person. As for Me. I believe there is a God. Proving that something that exists on the 6th dimension or 7th is not important to me. The fact that mankind from all walks of life to the very back woods of Tasmania believes in a supreme being tells me God has put his knowledge in mans heart. I do not care which name you use, or which Religion you follow. There is one god. We all worship the same God, just in different ways.

Damn. That’s scary. That’s delusional.

If you were talking about anything else besides religion, you could get locked up for shit like that. Padded room and self-hugging suit and everything.

Huh?

My response to you is your own response to me.

First of all, there’s no such thing as proof as you demand it. You can’t prove anything in this world because it could all be a dream. [Insert Theremin Music Here.]

You are a very confused person. As for Me. I believe there is a God. Proving that something that exists on the 6th dimension or 7th is not important to me. The fact that mankind from all walks of life to the very back woods of Tasmania believes in a supreme being tells me God has put his knowledge in mans heart. I do not care which name you use, or which Religion you follow. There is one god. We all worship the same God, just in different ways.

First of all, there’s no such thing as proof as you demand it. You can’t prove anything in this world because it could all be a dream. [Insert Theremin Music Here.]

What it is is compelling evidence. Independently verifiably evidence. Anyone who studies comparative religions can see this. This is simple fact is more than all the pro-god evidence combined.

“I simply proposed to you that we are all worshipping the same god. We just use different names and differing traditions.”

That can’t be true because nearly all religions are mutually exclusive. “I am the Lord your God. You shall have no other gods before me.” You can’t be a Scientologist and a Christian at the same time, they have mutually exclusive beliefs. The same is true of Buddhism and Judaism, etc.

The fact that you didn’t know that suggests you are over your head in this debate.

“All I asked is what evidence. You point to all this evidence as overwhelming yet if it was overwhelming Mankind would be committing suicide right and left.”

Why? Why would people be committing suicide? Just cause you can’t figure out how to live without your superstitions doesn’t mean everyone is that weak.

As for the evidence…

Prove to me that your god is the right god and the other gods are false. I’m sure someone who believes in the other god(s) can do the same to yours.

Or simply read the bible, in it there are scientifically testable claims made. They have been tested, and the bible has failed. For instance, according to the bible, you can drink poison and not die. Care to give that one a try?

Then you get into the incredibly shrinking god. A few thousand years ago god was really powerful. He causes the rain to fall, he causes the seasons to change, and he caused the sun to rise and fall. Then science came along and figured out that what seemed complex and in need of divine intervention was in fact based on very simple natural laws. Each of these laws we figured out took away from god’s powers. No longer were solar eclipses a powerful omen, they were merely the moon getting in the way of the sun. An event that is not only devoid of the supernatural but is completely predictable with a few simple mathematical tools.

If god really existed, he could break these rules, and according to the bible, you used to on a regular basis. So why doesn’t it happen anymore? Why doesn’t the sun stop in the sky?

You see, every time there’s a claim of the supernatural that can be explained away by natural laws, it’s evidence there is no god. And this evidence is independently verifiable and overwhelming.

So what your saying is because the Hindu worship one thing, Muslims another and Christians another then we cant all be right therefore we are all wrong.

That proves their is no God?

I simply proposed to you that we are all worshipping the same god. We just use different names and differing traditions.

Every bit of independently verifiable evidence shows that god(s) don’t exist. So it doesn’t take faith to say, ‘God(s) don’t exist.’ You can claiming that because something that can’t exist, (100% proof), doesn’t exist, our positionas are equal.

All I asked is what evidence. You point to all this evidence as overwhelming yet if it was overwhelming Mankind would be committing suicide right and left.

Ohh mabey thats what you want so you can have their stuff.

When you upack, bit-by-bit all these elements from the meaning of God, you’ll find that Atheists and Theists virtually agree. When it is objected that the atheist doesn’t have the ultimate answers, we find, similarly, nobody does. The neo-atheists want us to stop pretending anybody really does.

Goddamnit! What is wrong with you?

There’s a difference between not being able to prove something 100%, which is impossible, and have the preponderance of evidence on your side. Every bit of independently verifiable evidence shows that god(s) don’t exist. So it doesn’t take faith to say, ‘God(s) don’t exist.’ You can claiming that because something that can’t exist, (100% proof), doesn’t exist, our positionas are equal.

Are you really this fucking stupid? And I’m asking that as a serious question.

Sam so now your saying that if I raise my daughter in a way that does not make sure she has premarital sex that I am failing as a father and that my way of raising my daughter is not right? Therefore it is your perception of how things should be that determines if the world is adhering to your precepts and notions and not mine.

You are every bit the decider Christians or relgous people are. Its just that what you decide as relevant is not the same thing or has the same priority as someone else. Therefore anyone who chooses to have a differing set of values then yours is by association Wrong according to Sams law.

“So basically what you are saying is: …
You are saying that you are the BushMaster? …
Brother Alpha is the Decider? Because Descartes says so? “

Does anyone needs any further proof that faith is irrational and religion makes you irrational? Didn’t think so.

BrianOfAtlanta

Yet evolution, which I would assume you would consider to be a natural, rational process, selects very strongly for faith. You can make a good argument that faith is irrational, just not a good scientific one.

I would argue it doesn’t. Humans are inquisitive and desire answers for every day problems. This is good, because without this in our nature, we wouldn’t advance.

However, what happens when we can’t find the answer? We invent one. This is the god in the gaps. The less gaps we have in our knowledge, the small god gets. Science explains it rationally.

Me:

There are people in the world who are saying, “There’s isn’t 100% proof that I am wrong, so I must be right.�

Tonto:

A shining example you make, BrotherAlpha.

Except I’m not saying, “There isn’t 100% proof that I’m wrong.” I’m saying, “Every peice of independently verifiable evidence suggests I’m right and there is no god(s). Granted, there could be new evidence that shows up tomorrow proving there is a god, but it would be foolish to live my life under the premise that it will happen.”

There are people in the world who are saying, “There’s isn’t 100% proof that I am wrong, so I must be right.�

A shining example you make, BrotherAlpha.

These worst case scenarios used as a justification for telling the rest of us how to live our lives in a non worst case scenario life.

Gee Sam, you just described how we Libertarians view about 65% of our laws.

BrotherAlpha said: Faith is irrational, and the natural laws are highly rational.

Yet evolution, which I would assume you would consider to be a natural, rational process, selects very strongly for faith. You can make a good argument that faith is irrational, just not a good scientific one. And this is the point at which Dawkins and Harris jump the rhetorical shark, claiming, in the name of science, the superiority of atheism over religion while ignoring what science tells us of the relative worth of belief vs. unbelief.

Oddly enough I feel christians in particular, who seem to really like to throw out these protect the children arguements, do the least to actually prepare their children to look after themselves. What rule are you going to make that prevents me from having sex with your daughter? Age of consent laws are already in place and I’m happy to comply with them. Aside from that, she’s going to make her own decision and what kind of woman she is going to be is in large part shaped by you or not shaped by you.

I am a horny heathen. But we are all horny. Doesn’t mean we all go to orgies and try to tear the social fabric apart. Although to be honest I have yet to be invited to an orgy so I can’t say for sure whether or not I’d go. If there are alot of atheists out there going to orgies and knocking up young christian girls I somehow got left out. Probably due to something Pat Robertson did.

While commendable Sam. However your actions do affect me. I have a daughter. You are a horny heathen. You get my daughter pregnant or worse give her aids and essentially ruin her life. Now she is begging for an abortion in which I am opposed to and it quickly escalates into a huge snowball.

But thats okay I solved the problem. I found 20 dollars in my desk!!! There is a God after all!!

Problem with this arguement is it can be used for anything. Santa Claus, the flying spagehtti monster, whatever. So its essentially useless except as a last ditch effort to stave off facing reality.

My main complaint agaisnt religons is they just dont’ mind their own business. You don’t want to have premarital sex, or use condoms when you do, or eat pork, or whatever fine. Don’t do it. Why do I have to follow the same rules? Can’t I just live my heathen life, and religous people be happy knowing I’m going to burn in hell forever? I think it would really work out best for all of us.

Also, someone mentioned the mention of God on money and the Pledge of Allegiance. That actually does bother me a little bit. The money not so much, but the pledge is actually something I like, and I feel its pretty much invalidated for me because of that one rediculous phrase. Again, its just an unofficial thing, but annoying.

They can??? Breaking news folks. BrotherAlpha has proved there is no god!!

God exists because I say he does. Dispute this claim.

The fact is you cannot. You can only talk in circles like your 20 dollar bill. Comparing God to having 20 dollars in your desk is compelling evidence I must admit but…………….NO…..it doesnt quite convince me there is no God.

So basically what you are saying is:

For instance, let’s say there is a bush with berries on it. The berries look good, but the first person to eat them keels over dead. So does the second. And the third.

Brother Alpha is the Decider? Because Descartes says so?

You can have a belief that the entirety of the universe (gods included) must be governed by laws very close to the natural laws we already know, but unfortunately that is just a belief. Any time you try and use science or logic to prove the ultimate validity of science or logic you get trapped in a circular argument.

Why is logic the best way to resolve all disputes? If you use logic, to prove the validity of logic, its circular, and if you use something else to prove logic’s validity, you then have simultaneously disproven your own claim because you have shown something other than logic to have a valuable use.