Atheism is a Fringe Kook Theory Cult

[PratchettFan]

No, it refers to believing in something for which there is little or no evidence. Can you name anything that is both of no consequence and whose existence is not supported by any meaningful amount of tangible evidence that has a following of believers that measure in the hundreds of millions?

Yes. Buddhism. Hinduism. Sikhism. Confuciousism. Shintoism. Judaism. I'm sure with some effort I could come up with others. I do not buy that Christians believe because they are afraid not to. Could you believe something you don't because you were afraid?

 

[PratchettFan]

Correct.

Acknowledging facts and the truth is not 'belief'; theism is the aberration, not those free from faith.


Religion and 'god' are creations of man, just the same as any other myth, legend, or fiction created by man.

God is a creation of man. Since this is not a belief, you can produce objective evidence to support that claim.

 

[guno]

Conspiracy Theory Poll Results - Public Policy Polling



25% of Brits think the lunar landings were a hoax, though only 6 to 7%% of Americans do.
Could moon landings have been faked? Some still think so - CNN.com

But LESS THAN 3% of Americans are atheist!
5 facts about atheists | Pew Research Center

That is right, more people believe that Elvis is still alive, that the world is ruled by lizard people, that Big Foot stalks our Rocky Mountains and that the US government caused 9-11 than believe that there is no God.

Atheists are simply kook-burgers like the 9-11 Truthers or the lunar landing denialists.

You present them with evidence like the Big Bang and you get things like 'Oh, I don't believe in the Big Bang.' You tell them how the infinite regression fallacy demonstrates that time had to have a starting point and they duh into silence. Show them alternative explanations that present Christianity in a better light than the Zinn bullshit people are fed these days and they simply repeat the propaganda and insist that it is all true no matter how Christians try to 'spin it'. Lol, now these morons cant distinguish between Russell and quackery or tell a good argument from a pile of nonsense.

Why do we theists give them the time of day?

They really cant be taken seriously any more. The Bertrand Russells are long gone, just the jack asses remain among atheism today; why bother?

Religious fundamentalism could soon be treated as mental illness


Religious fundamentalism could soon be treated as mental illness

Read more: Religious fundamentalism could soon be treated as mental illness

 

[NYcarbineer]

Yes. Buddhism. Hinduism. Sikhism. Confuciousism. Shintoism. Judaism. I'm sure with some effort I could come up with others. I do not buy that Christians believe because they are afraid not to. Could you believe something you don't because you were afraid?

It's not that simple. Faith's best friend is doubt. All one needs is one particle of doubt in amongst a mountain of what otherwise appear to be facts in order to facilitate faith taking over and enabling one to believe that which contradicts the facts, and that which is much more comforting to believe.

 

[PratchettFan]

It's not that simple. Faith's best friend is doubt. All one needs is one particle of doubt in amongst a mountain of what otherwise appear to be facts in order to facilitate faith taking over and enabling one to believe that which contradicts the facts, and that which is much more comforting to believe.

Is that why you believe what you believe?

 

[orogenicman]

It's not that simple. Faith's best friend is doubt. All one needs is one particle of doubt in amongst a mountain of what otherwise appear to be facts in order to facilitate faith taking over and enabling one to believe that which contradicts the facts, and that which is much more comforting to believe.

That works only for those who are naïve enough to believe that one particle of doubt supersedes a mountain of data. In the vast majority of cases, it doesn't. That particle of doubt would have to be truly extraordinary, and utterly unambiguous.

 

[PratchettFan]

That works only for those who are naïve enough to believe that one particle of doubt supersedes a mountain of data. In the vast majority of cases, it doesn't. That particle of doubt would have to be truly extraordinary, and utterly unambiguous.

What mountain of data? In fact, let's keep this very simple. Don't show me the mountain, show me a single rock. Show me a single objective fact as to the existence or non-existence of God. Point out just one and I will concede Atheism is the only rational conclusion. Heck, I'll do the same for any Theist out there as well. One lousy objective and pertinent fact is all I'm asking for.

 

[NYcarbineer]

What mountain of data? In fact, let's keep this very simple. Don't show me the mountain, show me a single rock. Show me a single objective fact as to the existence or non-existence of God. Point out just one and I will concede Atheism is the only rational conclusion. Heck, I'll do the same for any Theist out there as well. One lousy objective and pertinent fact is all I'm asking for.

You're arguing against this:

"Russell's teapot, sometimes called the celestial teapot or cosmic teapot, is an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others, specifically in the case of religion. Russell wrote that if he claims that a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, it is nonsensical for him to expect others to believe him on the grounds that they cannot prove him wrong. Russell's teapot is still referred to in discussions concerning the existence of God."

I agree with Russell.

Russell's teapot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[PratchettFan]

You're arguing against this:

"Russell's teapot, sometimes called the celestial teapot or cosmic teapot, is an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others, specifically in the case of religion. Russell wrote that if he claims that a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, it is nonsensical for him to expect others to believe him on the grounds that they cannot prove him wrong. Russell's teapot is still referred to in discussions concerning the existence of God."

I agree with Russell.

Russell's teapot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I have no problem with you agreeing. However, what I asked for was a single objective fact. I was told there was a mountain of data and I'm just asking for one. Do you have one?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Yes. Buddhism. Hinduism. Sikhism. Confuciousism. Shintoism. Judaism. I'm sure with some effort I could come up with others. I do not buy that Christians believe because they are afraid not to. Could you believe something you don't because you were afraid?

So now you are denying that people are afraid of dying?

Being afraid of dying is how we stay alive. We don't walk in front of big rigs on the highway and jump off tall buildings because we are afraid of dying.

So yes, this fear is very real and religion exploits this fear by pretending to know what happens after you die. Religions offers a fairy tale "after life" to replace the fear of dying but only if you believe whatever the religion is peddling. And it isn't free either. You are expected to not only believe but also subject yourself to various rituals and pay for the privilege.

And yes, billions of people are afraid of dying and do believe in the "promises" of religion because they are afraid.

 

[Derideo_Te]

What mountain of data? In fact, let's keep this very simple. Don't show me the mountain, show me a single rock. Show me a single objective fact as to the existence or non-existence of God. Point out just one and I will concede Atheism is the only rational conclusion. Heck, I'll do the same for any Theist out there as well. One lousy objective and pertinent fact is all I'm asking for.

Pick up a rock, any rock, and that is your objective evidence right there in your hand. That is matter. It contains potential energy which will become kinetic energy if you let it fall under the influence of gravity which is one of the forces of the universe.

All of those are objective and pertinent facts that the universe exists.

Compared to those facts there is not one single objective and pertinent facts that an omnipotent creator exists. Nowhere will you be able to point to a particle of matter or observe energy in motion or demonstrate a universal force that establishes the existence of an omnipotent creator.

In one hand you have a rock and in the other nothing whatsoever.

What rational conclusion can you draw from the evidence (and lack thereof) in your hands?

 

[NYcarbineer]

I have no problem with you agreeing. However, what I asked for was a single objective fact. I was told there was a mountain of data and I'm just asking for one. Do you have one?

You're disputing that the theory of evolution is supported by huge amounts of research and data?

 

[PratchettFan]

So now you are denying that people are afraid of dying?

Being afraid of dying is how we stay alive. We don't walk in front of big rigs on the highway and jump off tall buildings because we are afraid of dying.

So yes, this fear is very real and religion exploits this fear by pretending to know what happens after you die. Religions offers a fairy tale "after life" to replace the fear of dying but only if you believe whatever the religion is peddling. And it isn't free either. You are expected to not only believe but also subject yourself to various rituals and pay for the privilege.

And yes, billions of people are afraid of dying and do believe in the "promises" of religion because they are afraid.

I thought you weren't talking to me anymore. I do not accept your unsupported beliefs.

 

[PratchettFan]

You're disputing that the theory of evolution is supported by huge amounts of research and data?

It is quite possible I missed something here. This is a thread on Atheism vs Theism. Were we actually talking about evolution? If so, then I agree there is a mountain of data. I thought we were talking about the existence of God.

 

[PratchettFan]

Pick up a rock, any rock, and that is your objective evidence right there in your hand. That is matter. It contains potential energy which will become kinetic energy if you let it fall under the influence of gravity which is one of the forces of the universe.

All of those are objective and pertinent facts that the universe exists.

Compared to those facts there is not one single objective and pertinent facts that an omnipotent creator exists. Nowhere will you be able to point to a particle of matter or observe energy in motion or demonstrate a universal force that establishes the existence of an omnipotent creator.

In one hand you have a rock and in the other nothing whatsoever.

What rational conclusion can you draw from the evidence (and lack thereof) in your hands?

Well, since you are apparently talking to me again...

You have just given me the same argument I have gotten from Theists. Look at this rock, how else could it have gotten here if not for God? I will give you the same response.... I have no idea. Now, when you actually have some objective and pertinent fact let me know. All you have given me so far is unsupported belief.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I thought you weren't talking to me anymore. I do not accept your unsupported beliefs.

My mistake for giving you a second chance. It won't happen again!

But thanks for proving beyond any doubt that you are a liar who has zero interest in actual facts. You whine that none are provided but as soon as you are presented with them you lie and call them "beliefs". That makes you a baiting troll.

Welcome to Cyberia! *click*

 

[PratchettFan]

My mistake for giving you a second chance. It won't happen again!

But thanks for proving beyond any doubt that you are a liar who has zero interest in actual facts. You whine that none are provided but as soon as you are presented with them you lie and call them "beliefs". That makes you a baiting troll.

Welcome to Cyberia! *click*

Goodness. How shall I ever learn to live with the pain?

 

[PostmodernProph]

You're disputing that the theory of evolution is supported by huge amounts of research and data?

the part that says a single celled organims evolved into a multicelled organism?......yes......I won't dispute that blue butterflies evolved from green ones......

 

[NYcarbineer]

the part that says a single celled organims evolved into a multicelled organism?......yes......I won't dispute that blue butterflies evolved from green ones......

nsf.gov - National Science Foundation (NSF) News - Biologists Replicate Key Evolutionary Step in Life on Earth - US National Science Foundation (NSF)

 

[PostmodernProph]

nsf.gov - National Science Foundation (NSF) News - Biologists Replicate Key Evolutionary Step in Life on Earth - US National Science Foundation (NSF)

replied to in the other thread, no reason to embarrass you twice.....