A Thought for Atheists

[Dr Grump]

Where did I point to a sunset or the smile of a baby as evidence of anything? Thank you for proving to others here that I am right about you being close minded and intellectually dishonest.

I have heard that argument many times from those who believe in a god as evidence..

Huh? How is that even close to being close-minded or intellectually dishonest? Ok, stump up - bring forward your evidence. Be intellectually honest.... be open-minded....

You do not think is intellectually dishonest to throw up strawmen? You don't think it is close minded to expect me to resort to arguments based on emotion when I have been articulating solid points that are based on everything but emotion?

Ok, forget what I said about the baby etc (I think your clinging to that, so as not to answer my other queries). So where is your evidence...

If have yet to see a solid point. Only opinions....

 

[Dr Grump]

Oh and BTW, it is not a strawman if that argument has been used ad nauseum over time....Remember, it hasn't been my argument, but your brethren who are believers...

 

[Lokiate]

Now guess what my response has been when atheists have written that SOME Christians are extreme racists or whatever? I've said "You're right. Some are."
The difference in replies is evident.

The cool thing about being an atheist is that I speak for myself. Collectivism is such a dreary, marxist fad. Some atheists are douchebags, happy? I rarely get along with other atheists, anyhow, because I have ideals and beliefs not common to "mainstream" atheism, whatever the fuck that is.

Some are hippies, some are marxists, some are apolitical, some are anarchists, some are activists, some are apathetic, some are even ritualistic (LaVeyan Satanists, for example), and some of us are classical conservative Capitalists. I've met a few that hold similar ideals as I, and if they said anything I disagree with, I might let them know. Those are my people. The leftists, radicals, and apolitical are not.

I will not apologize for them, because sharing a single trait does not make us 'bros'. There is a lot more to an atheist than ones lack of faith in something.

If they were being honest and open minded they would admit they do not know if there is one, or more, supreme beings and call themselves agnostic.

This one is actually pretty easy to explain. First off, I'm not a strictly "science only" atheist. I am open to belief in extranatural phenomena. However, the probability of a god, by its definition, is so improbable, that it can be dismissed.

 

[Colin]

.

None of your business what others believe or don't believe? Your post indicates otherwise. What would you prefer to be labelled...a self-righteous hypocrite or a bald faced liar?

Really? Where do I say anything that deprecates atheism itself? I don't? hmmm.
Where do I claim that atheists are self-deluded, ignorant, the source of evil etc...? I don't? Hmmm.
So thank you. You make now continue labeling me.

Hey. Isn't that what atheists complain that others do to them?

Label you? No need to. You do that quite well yourself!

 

[IndependntLogic]

None of your business what others believe or don't believe? Your post indicates otherwise. What would you prefer to be labelled...a self-righteous hypocrite or a bald faced liar?

Really? Where do I say anything that deprecates atheism itself? I don't? hmmm.
Where do I claim that atheists are self-deluded, ignorant, the source of evil etc...? I don't? Hmmm.
So thank you. You make now continue labeling me.

Hey. Isn't that what atheists complain that others do to them?

Label you? No need to. You do that quite well yourself!

Got it. So you're spanked and you realize it. Okay. Btw, labeled is spelled with two L's not three. I'm here to help. I'm a helper. It's what I do.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I have heard that argument many times from those who believe in a god as evidence..

Huh? How is that even close to being close-minded or intellectually dishonest? Ok, stump up - bring forward your evidence. Be intellectually honest.... be open-minded....

You do not think is intellectually dishonest to throw up strawmen? You don't think it is close minded to expect me to resort to arguments based on emotion when I have been articulating solid points that are based on everything but emotion?

Ok, forget what I said about the baby etc (I think your clinging to that, so as not to answer my other queries). So where is your evidence...

If have yet to see a solid point. Only opinions....

No, I focused on that to make the point that you are close minded. I have actually presented evidence, and you rejected it because it did not meet your arbitrary standards. Science does not hold itself to the standard of evidence you are trying to impose on God, yet you have no trouble accepting it, even when there is no verifiable evidence.

Let's go back a bit. In the 1920's, the astronomer Fritz Zwicky found that galaxies were moving around in clusters so quickly that unless there was a lot of matter that wasn't in the form of stars or gas, the clusters should fly apart in no time. Vera Ruben showed the same thing for individual galaxies in the 1970's. A rough estimate is that about 85% of all of the matter in the universe is in some form of Dark Matter.
Breaking it down by the fraction of the cosmic inventory, ordinary matter makes up about 5% of the total, Dark Matter makes up about 25%, and Dark Energy makes up about 70%.
And don't even get me started about Dark Energy. It's the stuff that accelerates the universe, and if you think you've got a problem with Dark Matter, wait'll you see Dark Energy. It's no so much that we don't understand where Dark Energy could come from; it's just that the "natural" value (the one that comes out of reasonable assumptions based on vacuum energy) is about 10^100 times the density that we actually observe. For my money, this is the absolute biggest problem in physics.
All we know with high certainty about Dark Matter is spelled out in the name. It doesn't have any electrical charge (light interacts strongly with charged particles, so it'd be easy to spot), and it isn't made of atoms, because those are also relatively easy to see. The reason that some people are so dismissive of Dark Matter is that they're focusing on 90-year-old arguments. They are judgy because a) We've never detected a Dark Matter particle, and b) We're not even really sure what it is.
But there are LOTS of reasons to believe in Dark Matter, besides the obvious (and damn compelling, if you ask me) fact that galaxies would fly apart with out it. Here are three good ones:

Ask A Physicist: Why Believe In Dark Matter?

There are reasons to believe in God, you just reject them because your mind is closed. Here is one very good reason to believe in God.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p05E_ohaQGk"]The Christmas Truce of 1914 - YouTube[/ame]

This is a documented historical event, not something I made up, nor is it something that people can claim was written down decades after it happened.

By the way, since there is no God at all, can you explain how a small group of people got together and made up a story about the son of a carpenter being crucified outside the largest city in the country. That they said this fictitious event occurred just before a major national holiday, and then managed to spread the lie so effectively that, despite the fact that there were actually people alive that could stand up and state that they had been in Jerusalem at that time, and that nothing like that happened, the head of the largest nation on the planet blamed the followers of this lie for burning Rome less than 35 years later?

How can you honestly say that your version of history makes any sense? Yet you want me to believe that you are open minded because you reject the evidence that is right there for you to see because it is not "verifiable."

There are lots of things that are not verifiable, that does not make them not true.

 

[Colin]

Really? Where do I say anything that deprecates atheism itself? I don't? hmmm.
Where do I claim that atheists are self-deluded, ignorant, the source of evil etc...? I don't? Hmmm.
So thank you. You make now continue labeling me.

Hey. Isn't that what atheists complain that others do to them?

Label you? No need to. You do that quite well yourself!

Got it. So you're spanked and you realize it. Okay. Btw, labeled is spelled with two L's not three. I'm here to help. I'm a helper. It's what I do.

Spanked? Lol! By a self-righteous chump who talks out of both sides of his mouth at the same time! You sure have a an over-inflated ego, in fact I'm beginning to wonder how you manage to pull such a big head out of your anus.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Oh and BTW, it is not a strawman if that argument has been used ad nauseum over time....Remember, it hasn't been my argument, but your brethren who are believers...

It is a strawman when you bring it up to challenge someone who did not say it. I am not responsible for what other people say, and I do not expect you to defend positions that other atheist have taken in the past in an attempt to refute my arguments. Does that make me intellectually honest or dishonest?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If they were being honest and open minded they would admit they do not know if there is one, or more, supreme beings and call themselves agnostic.

This one is actually pretty easy to explain. First off, I'm not a strictly "science only" atheist. I am open to belief in extranatural phenomena. However, the probability of a god, by its definition, is so improbable, that it can be dismissed.

That depends on how you define God. Personally, I do not know enough about Him to attempt to define Him, but I do know that most people who try to defend Him are incorrect about what He is. Maybe you should think that, in defining Him in a way that makes it impossible for you to believe, you are actually saying that you want something else to believe in. Why don't you try to find out who He really is before you decide He does not exist?

 

[Colin]

Really? Where do I say anything that deprecates atheism itself? I don't? hmmm.
Where do I claim that atheists are self-deluded, ignorant, the source of evil etc...? I don't? Hmmm.
So thank you. You make now continue labeling me.

Hey. Isn't that what atheists complain that others do to them?

Label you? No need to. You do that quite well yourself!

Got it. So you're spanked and you realize it. Okay. Btw, labeled is spelled with two L's not three. I'm here to help. I'm a helper. It's what I do.

Before flapping your rather large facial orifice and suggesting my spelling is incorrect, perhaps it would be advisable to check your facts. That way you don't prove yourself to be a somewhat ignorant twat. Check it out and you will find there are two ways of spelling 'labelled'. The way it is spelt in the US, ie. 'labeled'...and the way it is spelt in Britain and the rest of the English speaking world...labelled. Clearly you're not a man of the world.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Label you? No need to. You do that quite well yourself!

Got it. So you're spanked and you realize it. Okay. Btw, labeled is spelled with two L's not three. I'm here to help. I'm a helper. It's what I do.

Before flapping your rather large facial orifice and suggesting my spelling is incorrect, perhaps it would be advisable to check your facts. That way you don't prove yourself to be a somewhat ignorant twat. Check it out and you will find there are two ways of spelling 'labelled'. The way it is spelt in the US, ie. 'labeled'...and the way it is spelt in Britain and the rest of the English speaking world...labelled. Clearly you're not a man of the world.

You guys should learn to speak real English, not that furrin' stuff.

 

[Lokiate]

That depends on how you define God.

All I have to go on are definitions, depictions, and writings. The majority of which describe an anthropomorphic entity, which I cannot possibly believe in.

Personally, I do not know enough about Him to attempt to define Him, but I do know that most people who try to defend Him are incorrect about what He is. Maybe you should think that, in defining Him in a way that makes it impossible for you to believe, you are actually saying that you want something else to believe in. Why don't you try to find out who He really is before you decide He does not exist?

What I'm doing is going off of prior descriptions given. Even the god Yahweh walked the Earth, and did very human things in the book of Genesis, before becoming more abstract, and obscure in Exodus, on. I cannot know something I have not experienced.

What I do believe in is not a god, but the soul that is present in all living things. The closest description would be animism, though not 100% accurate, because many animists believe in mythical creatures like fairies, or dwarves. I do not.

 

[LOki]

Atheists often post that they are persecuted, oppressed, distrusted or even hated by others. Have you ever considered that you might be largely responsible for this?

Nope.

Do you think most atheists assuage the problem or fan those flames of distrust and hatred?

Atheists cannot assuage a problem that has nothing to do with them, and everything to do with the superstitious rationalizing of faith.

Think of whatever ideal you hold most dear.

Ok. Useful conclusions about the nature of reality--and living in reality--that are validated by verifiable evidence and valid logic.

Let's say it's love.

No. Let's say it's 'REASON.'

So if I put up websites, posters, books whatever saying "REASON is like a spaghetti monster. The only people who believe in it are self-deluded, ignorant assh0les!"? How would you feel about me if you were someone who believed in REASON?

I'd say you're a superstitious retard.

What if posts from the anti-REASONers all reflected that same hostility? I mean, they couldn't just go about their lives but rather put in great effort to prove that something you value, is valueless. How would you feel about such a group?

That they're a dangerously superstitious bunch of retards.

I think many atheists have exacerbated the problem they complain about.

That's because they apply reason to the problem, and the problem is that the superstitious validate their hatred of reason and those who use it by the strenth of their denial of verifiable evidence and valid logic.

Reasoning with superstitious retards can only exacerbate their retarded hatred for the rational.

I personally don't think it's any of my business what you believe or don't believe. And while you complain about how religion effects some of our policies, guess what? So does atheism.

Not as much as you'd like to claim.

Now in recognition that the superstitious always have a problem with competing superstitions, I'm about to cut you little slack here regarding your feelings towards some atheists--but don't run too far with it, because there's not much to run with.

A tiny minority of atheists go beyond the assertion that they don't believe in the existence of God(s), to say that they believe that God(s) do not exist. The superstitious are usually thoughtless, so they usually fail to note the distinction, let alone the importance of that distinction.

To claim that God(s) do not exist, requires just a tiny application of invalid logic--a tiny leap of faith--at the very end of their reasoning train: their conclusion, if you will. These dumbasses run around (in a manner reminiscent of theist faithies) claiming, "There is no god!"

Which is not what the vast, vast majority of atheists claim, which is: "There is no (valid) reason to believe that God(s) exist."

Which also means, "There's no reason to believe your particular personal God exists."

Which also means, "There's a real good reason to not force your particular personal God on people who do not believe in Him, through the coercive mechanism of government.

Which is the precise point of the Constitutional injuction against any degree of union between government and religion.

That's secular government, and despite the frothy and superstitious rantings of the faithies, it's not atheism--it's respect for the beliefs (even faith) of others.

Do children pray in school anymore? Nope.

Ahem ... YEP! Children most certainly may pray in school, and do pray in school--even public schools.

Federal policy.

NOPE. Not at all. I know you believe it's federal policy that no children can pray in school anymore, but you have absolutely no verifiable evidence such a policy exists, and the only validation you require that such policy exists is that you believe it does.

Before you cite some example of an attempt to outright ban prayer in a public school, just make sure its an example of a successful attempt, and not one that got kicked squarely in the balls.

how about an employer who puts crosses and religious articles around the office? Subject to lawsuits? You bet.

Government employer? Oh, absolutely. Government contractor? Understandably so. Private employer? Ridiculous.

It goes both ways.

Only in the retarded opinions of the superstitious.

So if you want people to have more of a "I don't care what others believe" kind of attitude, why don't you?

Since evidence and valid logic contradicting your belief would only strengthen your belief, what could actually be presented that would convince you that this is already being done?

It certainly isn't an appeal to emotion ... that's what this current complaint of yours is all about.

Why aren't you admonishing atheists who antagonize people of faith?

Because simply reasoning with people of faith is the precise thing that antagonizes them the most. That's why.

They whine about people not liking them, and then go out of their way to attack something they know is important to others.

"Whine." LOLsome.

<whine>"Atheists have banned prayer in school! Atheists want children to believe I'm a monkey! Atheists want to take Jesus' birthday away!"</whine>

That's like spitting on people, telling them they're idiots... and then playing victim because "no one likes me!".

HAHAHAHAHA!

That is just rich!

Whatever you think atheists are doing, they're never telling you it's ok to kill you because you don't believe in their God(s). They're not telling you that you have earned and deserve an eternity of torture because you don't believe in their God(s).

You see, it's not at all like atheists are telling people that they are all filthy pieces of shit, entirely unworthy of love ... and then playing victim because "no one likes me!"

Sorry about your superstitious luck.

How many times have you told a fellow atheists on this board, that they should never attack someone because of their religious beliefs? After all, that's how you want OTHERS to treat you, right?

Never. Mostly because it's pointless. Any reasoned and well intentioned critique of a faithy's superstition will always be taken as an attack on their religious beliefs.

There's no sense in warning them off of that.

Or is it only everyone else who should respect religious beliefs / lack thereof?

Just a thought.

Let's not pretend that religious beliefs, founded solely upon faith, are anything but superstitions. The superstitious should be grateful for any respect their superstitions receive. Such respect has not been earned--it's a gift, not an entitlement.

Just a thought.

 

[Montrovant]

If they were being honest and open minded they would admit they do not know if there is one, or more, supreme beings and call themselves agnostic.

This one is actually pretty easy to explain. First off, I'm not a strictly "science only" atheist. I am open to belief in extranatural phenomena. However, the probability of a god, by its definition, is so improbable, that it can be dismissed.

That depends on how you define God. Personally, I do not know enough about Him to attempt to define Him, but I do know that most people who try to defend Him are incorrect about what He is. Maybe you should think that, in defining Him in a way that makes it impossible for you to believe, you are actually saying that you want something else to believe in. Why don't you try to find out who He really is before you decide He does not exist?

If you don't know enough to define god, how do you know that others are wrong about what god is? That seems like a glaring contradiction.

 

[InDoctriNation]

You do not think is intellectually dishonest to throw up strawmen? You don't think it is close minded to expect me to resort to arguments based on emotion when I have been articulating solid points that are based on everything but emotion?

Ok, forget what I said about the baby etc (I think your clinging to that, so as not to answer my other queries). So where is your evidence...

If have yet to see a solid point. Only opinions....

No, I focused on that to make the point that you are close minded. I have actually presented evidence, and you rejected it because it did not meet your arbitrary standards. Science does not hold itself to the standard of evidence you are trying to impose on God, yet you have no trouble accepting it, even when there is no verifiable evidence.

Let's go back a bit. In the 1920's, the astronomer Fritz Zwicky found that galaxies were moving around in clusters so quickly that unless there was a lot of matter that wasn't in the form of stars or gas, the clusters should fly apart in no time. Vera Ruben showed the same thing for individual galaxies in the 1970's. A rough estimate is that about 85% of all of the matter in the universe is in some form of Dark Matter.
Breaking it down by the fraction of the cosmic inventory, ordinary matter makes up about 5% of the total, Dark Matter makes up about 25%, and Dark Energy makes up about 70%.
And don't even get me started about Dark Energy. It's the stuff that accelerates the universe, and if you think you've got a problem with Dark Matter, wait'll you see Dark Energy. It's no so much that we don't understand where Dark Energy could come from; it's just that the "natural" value (the one that comes out of reasonable assumptions based on vacuum energy) is about 10^100 times the density that we actually observe. For my money, this is the absolute biggest problem in physics.
All we know with high certainty about Dark Matter is spelled out in the name. It doesn't have any electrical charge (light interacts strongly with charged particles, so it'd be easy to spot), and it isn't made of atoms, because those are also relatively easy to see. The reason that some people are so dismissive of Dark Matter is that they're focusing on 90-year-old arguments. They are judgy because a) We've never detected a Dark Matter particle, and b) We're not even really sure what it is.
But there are LOTS of reasons to believe in Dark Matter, besides the obvious (and damn compelling, if you ask me) fact that galaxies would fly apart with out it. Here are three good ones:

Ask A Physicist: Why Believe In Dark Matter?

There are reasons to believe in God, you just reject them because your mind is closed. Here is one very good reason to believe in God.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p05E_ohaQGk"]The Christmas Truce of 1914 - YouTube[/ame]

This is a documented historical event, not something I made up, nor is it something that people can claim was written down decades after it happened.

By the way, since there is no God at all, can you explain how a small group of people got together and made up a story about the son of a carpenter being crucified outside the largest city in the country. That they said this fictitious event occurred just before a major national holiday, and then managed to spread the lie so effectively that, despite the fact that there were actually people alive that could stand up and state that they had been in Jerusalem at that time, and that nothing like that happened, the head of the largest nation on the planet blamed the followers of this lie for burning Rome less than 35 years later?

How can you honestly say that your version of history makes any sense? Yet you want me to believe that you are open minded because you reject the evidence that is right there for you to see because it is not "verifiable."

There are lots of things that are not verifiable, that does not make them not true.

The video of the Christmas truce, while extremely touching and inspiring, is not evidence of the existence of any sort of god. What happened on that day in 1914 is strikingly human, not supernatural. The fact that you think divine intervention is required for soldiers, who have been surrounded by nothing but death and destruction, to be good to each other on one day out of a year is an indictment of your inability to comprehend how humans can be moral all by themselves.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That depends on how you define God.

All I have to go on are definitions, depictions, and writings. The majority of which describe an anthropomorphic entity, which I cannot possibly believe in.

Personally, I do not know enough about Him to attempt to define Him, but I do know that most people who try to defend Him are incorrect about what He is. Maybe you should think that, in defining Him in a way that makes it impossible for you to believe, you are actually saying that you want something else to believe in. Why don't you try to find out who He really is before you decide He does not exist?

What I'm doing is going off of prior descriptions given. Even the god Yahweh walked the Earth, and did very human things in the book of Genesis, before becoming more abstract, and obscure in Exodus, on. I cannot know something I have not experienced.

What I do believe in is not a god, but the soul that is present in all living things. The closest description would be animism, though not 100% accurate, because many animists believe in mythical creatures like fairies, or dwarves. I do not.

Try multi-person pantheistic solipsism.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This one is actually pretty easy to explain. First off, I'm not a strictly "science only" atheist. I am open to belief in extranatural phenomena. However, the probability of a god, by its definition, is so improbable, that it can be dismissed.

That depends on how you define God. Personally, I do not know enough about Him to attempt to define Him, but I do know that most people who try to defend Him are incorrect about what He is. Maybe you should think that, in defining Him in a way that makes it impossible for you to believe, you are actually saying that you want something else to believe in. Why don't you try to find out who He really is before you decide He does not exist?

If you don't know enough to define god, how do you know that others are wrong about what god is? That seems like a glaring contradiction.

I never claim anyone is wrong about what God is. I rarely even get involved in debates about His existence, tain't my job to prove he exists. I do speak up when people try to twist the Bible to support their interpretation of God, but that is not me defining God, it is just me insisting on people using the same definitions that the rest of the world does.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Ok, forget what I said about the baby etc (I think your clinging to that, so as not to answer my other queries). So where is your evidence...

If have yet to see a solid point. Only opinions....

No, I focused on that to make the point that you are close minded. I have actually presented evidence, and you rejected it because it did not meet your arbitrary standards. Science does not hold itself to the standard of evidence you are trying to impose on God, yet you have no trouble accepting it, even when there is no verifiable evidence.

Let's go back a bit. In the 1920's, the astronomer Fritz Zwicky found that galaxies were moving around in clusters so quickly that unless there was a lot of matter that wasn't in the form of stars or gas, the clusters should fly apart in no time. Vera Ruben showed the same thing for individual galaxies in the 1970's. A rough estimate is that about 85% of all of the matter in the universe is in some form of Dark Matter.
Breaking it down by the fraction of the cosmic inventory, ordinary matter makes up about 5% of the total, Dark Matter makes up about 25%, and Dark Energy makes up about 70%.
And don't even get me started about Dark Energy. It's the stuff that accelerates the universe, and if you think you've got a problem with Dark Matter, wait'll you see Dark Energy. It's no so much that we don't understand where Dark Energy could come from; it's just that the "natural" value (the one that comes out of reasonable assumptions based on vacuum energy) is about 10^100 times the density that we actually observe. For my money, this is the absolute biggest problem in physics.
All we know with high certainty about Dark Matter is spelled out in the name. It doesn't have any electrical charge (light interacts strongly with charged particles, so it'd be easy to spot), and it isn't made of atoms, because those are also relatively easy to see. The reason that some people are so dismissive of Dark Matter is that they're focusing on 90-year-old arguments. They are judgy because a) We've never detected a Dark Matter particle, and b) We're not even really sure what it is.
But there are LOTS of reasons to believe in Dark Matter, besides the obvious (and damn compelling, if you ask me) fact that galaxies would fly apart with out it. Here are three good ones:

Ask A Physicist: Why Believe In Dark Matter?

There are reasons to believe in God, you just reject them because your mind is closed. Here is one very good reason to believe in God.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p05E_ohaQGk"]The Christmas Truce of 1914 - YouTube[/ame]

This is a documented historical event, not something I made up, nor is it something that people can claim was written down decades after it happened.

By the way, since there is no God at all, can you explain how a small group of people got together and made up a story about the son of a carpenter being crucified outside the largest city in the country. That they said this fictitious event occurred just before a major national holiday, and then managed to spread the lie so effectively that, despite the fact that there were actually people alive that could stand up and state that they had been in Jerusalem at that time, and that nothing like that happened, the head of the largest nation on the planet blamed the followers of this lie for burning Rome less than 35 years later?

How can you honestly say that your version of history makes any sense? Yet you want me to believe that you are open minded because you reject the evidence that is right there for you to see because it is not "verifiable."

There are lots of things that are not verifiable, that does not make them not true.

The video of the Christmas truce, while extremely touching and inspiring, is not evidence of the existence of any sort of god. What happened on that day in 1914 is strikingly human, not supernatural. The fact that you think divine intervention is required for soldiers, who have been surrounded by nothing but death and destruction, to be good to each other on one day out of a year is an indictment of your inability to comprehend how humans can be moral all by themselves.

Another person who is close minded and rejects the evidence in front of his nose.

By the way, I did not say that divine intervention caused the Christmas Truce, I said it is a good reason to believe in the existence of God. The problem I have with most idiots who think they have the answers already is they always use strawmen arguments to defend their positions. Why is it that people who supposedly have the intellectual high ground have to resort to deception when confronted with actual evidence?

 

[Dr.Drock]

No, I focused on that to make the point that you are close minded. I have actually presented evidence, and you rejected it because it did not meet your arbitrary standards. Science does not hold itself to the standard of evidence you are trying to impose on God, yet you have no trouble accepting it, even when there is no verifiable evidence.

Ask A Physicist: Why Believe In Dark Matter?

There are reasons to believe in God, you just reject them because your mind is closed. Here is one very good reason to believe in God.

The Christmas Truce of 1914 - YouTube

This is a documented historical event, not something I made up, nor is it something that people can claim was written down decades after it happened.

By the way, since there is no God at all, can you explain how a small group of people got together and made up a story about the son of a carpenter being crucified outside the largest city in the country. That they said this fictitious event occurred just before a major national holiday, and then managed to spread the lie so effectively that, despite the fact that there were actually people alive that could stand up and state that they had been in Jerusalem at that time, and that nothing like that happened, the head of the largest nation on the planet blamed the followers of this lie for burning Rome less than 35 years later?

How can you honestly say that your version of history makes any sense? Yet you want me to believe that you are open minded because you reject the evidence that is right there for you to see because it is not "verifiable."

There are lots of things that are not verifiable, that does not make them not true.

The video of the Christmas truce, while extremely touching and inspiring, is not evidence of the existence of any sort of god. What happened on that day in 1914 is strikingly human, not supernatural. The fact that you think divine intervention is required for soldiers, who have been surrounded by nothing but death and destruction, to be good to each other on one day out of a year is an indictment of your inability to comprehend how humans can be moral all by themselves.

Another person who is close minded and rejects the evidence in front of his nose.

By the way, I did not say that divine intervention caused the Christmas Truce, I said it is a good reason to believe in the existence of God. The problem I have with most idiots who think they have the answers already is they always use strawmen arguments to defend their positions. Why is it that people who supposedly have the intellectual high ground have to resort to deception when confronted with actual evidence?

People doing nice things for each other is proof of God and not thinking so is rejecting evidence right in front of my nose?

When i held the door open for a co worker a second ago, was God gripping my arm forcing me to hold it?

 

[InDoctriNation]

The story of the Christmas truce is just as good of a reason for believing in the existence of God as is a beautiful sunset or the smile of a small child (aka it's a terrible fucking reason). Even if I were to grant you that it was a good reason to believe in the existence of God, then I still wouldn't have the first damn clue as to what god or gods this event would lend credence to. There are magical, wonderful stories surrounding every religious dogma on the planet that are held up as truth by their proponents, so I'm wondering how you can claim that one of them is absolutely true while the thousands of others are pure fabrication (and yes, by claiming that one of them is absolutely true, you are indirectly claiming that the others are bullshit even if you haven't done so directly). Seems kind of close minded.