Atheists are not nearly as rationional as some think.

[JoshuaTree]

Love isn't wonderful because it's rational.

 

[JoshuaTree]

Love happens, right?

No formulas no equations.

Same thing with God.

The burden of proof isn't on the person in love.

 

[lukethethird]

We have a flock of militant fundamentalist atheists on board here.

Yes, with a completely irrational belief system, be afraid.

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes, with a completely irrational belief system, be afraid.

I do not consider atheism irrational humans as a generalization, not all atheists are irrational. I believe fallible humans have a habit of being irrational when the believe there way is the only possible way, and many Theists and Atheists, and others as well, suffer from this affliction.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

You are evading. Give me an example. A concrete one, please. Accusing is easy, but show me some evidence that your accusations are justified.

You said none of the scenarios can be proven true/false. So, ceteris paribus, I could equally say you are being sarcastic. You think gods are more serious than fairies, or what is your problem?

Or do you see some thing that might tilt any of these arguments in your direction?

Ciao

- viole

You have already won the argument. He is reduced to babbling on "auto-repeat". He is not interested in seeing the clear logic of your position, or the incredulous nature of his own. He is only interested in going the distance no matter what. He will always maintain a strategy of "repeat, distort, distract, and deny", until you simply give up out of frustration.

Salve!

 

[shunyadragon]

You have already won the argument. He is reduced to babbling on "auto-repeat". He is not interested in seeing the clear logic of your position, or the incredulous nature of his own. He is only interested in going the distance no matter what. He will always maintain a strategy of "repeat, distort, distract, and deny", until you simply give up out of frustration.

Salve!

Another militant fundamentalist babbling atheist. I guess you actually egocentrically consider yourself Truly 'Enlightened.' It looks good in the mirror.

 

[JoshuaTree]

You have already won the argument. He is reduced to babbling on "auto-repeat". He is not interested in seeing the clear logic of your position, or the incredulous nature of his own. He is only interested in going the distance no matter what. He will always maintain a strategy of "repeat, distort, distract, and deny", until you simply give up out of frustration.

Salve!

I think Spock cried at about this point in the movie.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

I think Spock cried at about this point in the movie.

I fasted for 19 days in March when he passed away. His character, and my genes, were my inspiration to succeed academically. I am certainly a true trekkie from the beginning. But no matter how much I what my beliefs to be real, the evidence always tells me THAT IT AIN'T.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Another militant fundamentalist babbling atheist. I guess you actually egocentrically consider yourself Truly 'Enlightened.' It looks good in the mirror.

Although I do look good in the mirror, I am no more Enlightened then you think you are. It is simply a tag, with whatever self-serving meaning you wish to attach. Militant Atheist? Only to the paranoid believer with a persecution complex. I don't believe that it is my duty to rid the world of all religions, that encroaches into my pursuit of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. I don't believe that it is my duty to rid the world of the early religious indoctrination of our weak, helpless, mentally vulnerable, and our very young. I don't believe that it is my duty to rid the world of religions, to prevent the loss of our innocence, our ability to excel, or our natural curiosity. I don't believe it is my duty to prevent any more of the "dumbing down" of Americans, which allows many people to believe in such lunacy as a flat earth, a 7-day creation, or belief in a supernatural existence. I don't think that it is my duty, to go out and actively proselytize and sermonize my Atheistic position onto others. My hope is that the evolutionary gene pool, will get rid of this gene over time.

So, no, not a militant in any respect. I have a position that is supported by the total lack of evidence for the existence of anything supernatural. If there was even one bit of evidence, my position would immediately change. Since you choose to take a different position in spite of the total lack of evidence, having evidence could never change your position. Even if God somehow told all believers that He was just a trickers, their presuppositional position would never allow them to change. This is indeed cognitive dissonance. Atheist do not share this mental conflict at all.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Love isn't wonderful because it's rational.

"Taking a dump" is orgasmic when your older, is this feeling also rational?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

To add: Not really cool, because it confirms your claim is based on a philosophical/theological assumption and not evidence.

Not necessary, just read your own posts, they are dripping sarcasm and paper cut out fairies.

FYI: when I see a debater criticizing their opponent’s tone, I usually take this as a sign that they’ve run out of substantive arguments.

 

[ChristineM]

We have a flock of militant fundamentalist atheists on board here.

Nope, just every day, run of the mill atheist who want to be themselves, not what you dictate them to be

 

[dimmesdale]

Well, it's a problem for me, as someone who prefers to have a clear idea of what they're talking about.

in a systematic investigation they do not need a clear idea of the person to eliminate other possibilities. That comes later. Let's say there is dead body shot thru the head and a spent gun shell located on the floor 10 ft away from the dead body. From that, we can reconstruct from the present to the past to deduce cause of death. We can eliminate natural from the get go. We have suicidal, homicide or accidental. Anyway, the shell is evidence of a gun which in turn demonstrates a finger on the trigger which leads to a person. To eliminate natural cause of death, we do not need to know one damn thing about the person. That comes later. Your error is in saying well we don't know anything about the person so we cannot eliminate a natural cause of death. The shell on the floor and the hole in the head would eliminate a natural cause to any reasonable investigator.

If not knowing what you're talking about doesn't trouble you then alas we're not likely to have a meaningful conversation, are we.

It does not trouble me to eliminate a natural cause. How many times does the same rudiment point have to be made before comprehension kicks in?

You can find cats in reality. Search reality as you will, you won't find infinite beings ─ they're only found in your imagination.

Cats are finite and the finite is dependent on the infinite, not the other way around. If you think the infinite is from the finite then you are stuck with everything from nothing which is what sleeping rocks dream about. Nothing would also eliminate the abstract. Everything from nothing is a contradiction which do not exist.

You can win the argument easily by giving us a satisfactory demonstration of a real infinite being.

Not here to spoon feed anybody or win arguments. You can do your own research and come to your own conclusions. Don't sit here and say you need a definition of an Infinite Being in order to eliminate a natural cause for the universe and life here. You don't.

Or you can begin to make the idea of a real infinite being more credible by offering a falsifiable hypothesis as to what such a being actually is and in what manner it could exist in reality. The stage is yours.

Is your existence unscientific because it cannot be falsified by you? All these appeals to science ignore the fact we do not make most decisions in life thru science methods.

I'll clarify by saying that sharing a common pool of stories may assist those sharing to think of themselves as a group and thus to function cooperatively, and that functioning cooperatively may enhance the chances of its individuals to survive long enough to breed. If you don't survive long enough to breed then you're not a player in the game of evolution.

Well, they are written as history, not stories. Events in space-time. The problem here is not with evidence because it is all abundant and clear to reasonable persons.

 

[shunyadragon]

FYI: when I see a debater criticizing their opponent’s tone, I usually take this as a sign that they’ve run out of substantive arguments.

No substantive argument presented to respond to.

 

[JoshuaTree]

I fasted for 19 days in March when he passed away. His character, and my genes, were my inspiration to succeed academically. I am certainly a true trekkie from the beginning. But no matter how much I what my beliefs to be real, the evidence always tells me THAT IT AIN'T.

Did Einstein begin with evidence or a belief?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No substantive argument presented to respond to.

I was talking about your arguments.

When your response to someone asking how your religion is more credible to belief in fairies is to criticize their tone, this suggests that you don't actually have any reasons to give to rate your religion higher than belief in fairies.

 

[JoshuaTree]

"Taking a dump" is orgasmic when your older, is this feeling also rational?

Well, sometimes a good dump after 50 is hard to explain.

 

[JoshuaTree]

I was talking about your arguments.

When your response to someone asking how your religion is more credible to belief in fairies is to criticize their tone, this suggests that you don't actually have any reasons to give to rate your religion higher than belief in fairies.

I think the secret to love or religion is sincerity.

 

[Polymath257]

Did Einstein begin with evidence or a belief?

he began with Maxwell's equations for the electromagnetic fields. Those were substantiated by experiment and observation prior to Einstein. But, they did NOT fit well with Newtonian dynamics (Galilean vs Lorentzian transformations). So Einstein figured out what sort of dynamics would be required to maintain Maxwell's equations and that lead to Special Relativity.

Evidence? Well, Maxwell's equations had been verified experimentally. Belief? That Maxwell's equations were more fundamental than Newtons.

Contrary to popular opinion, Einstein did not just sit and think in a vacuum.

 

[JoshuaTree]

he began with Maxwell's equations for the electromagnetic fields. Those were substantiated by experiment and observation prior to Einstein. But, they did NOT fit well with Newtonian dynamics (Galilean vs Lorentzian transformations). So Einstein figured out what sort of dynamics would be required to maintain Maxwell's equations and that lead to Special Relativity.

Evidence? Well, Maxwell's equations had been verified experimentally. Belief? That Maxwell's equations were more fundamental than Newtons.

Contrary to popular opinion, Einstein did not just sit and think in a vacuum.

Yeah, I seeking to illustrate that sometimes genius leaps beyond the evidence at hand... apparently not as I thought with Einstein via thought experiments. Thanks for the correction.