Religious people less intelligent than atheists?

[YWN666]

Using basic logic, explain to me why it is impossible to prove a negative.

http://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articlepdf/proveanegative.pdf

Since you can't, and it is actually possible to prove a negative, does that prove I don't understand logic?

I never said you can't prove a negative. I said you can't prove that something does not exist and that inability is not proof that the "something" DOES exist. It just means that the challenge to prove non-existence is logically meaningless. Have you ever heard of "Russell's teapot"?

Russell's Teapot - RationalWiki

Except that it is possible to prove things do not exist.

Then prove that leprechauns don't exist.

 

[YWN666]

I know that 3+5=12 in base 6, does that prove you are smart?

Math Forum - Ask Dr. Math

It just proves that you're a wise ass, which is not necessarily a bad thing but you understood the point I was making. Base 10 is assumed when no other number system is specified.

Being a wise ass is better than being an idiot that thinks bold font makes him look smart.

Oh get over it already. Whenever you can't address the issue, you jump on the bold font insults. Not too transparent.

 

[YWN666]

Let me put it this way... a person cannot be offended by someone unless (a) there is an element of truth in the offending claim, or (b) the offended person gives the other person some credibility.

For the THOUSANDTH time, this is not about being offended by a religious symbol or word. It is about respect in sharing common ground. People of many different beliefs and non-belief "share" government resources and it is pretty obnoxious when one portion of the population decides to commandeer those resources by putting up their own religious display to the exclusion of others. If Arlington National Cemetery erected a display at the entrance with a huge Muslim star and crescent, you can bet that the christians would have a shit fit. Why, then, is it OK for them to erect a christian cross? Unless they can erect a display for every one of the thousands of religious beliefs, then the fairest way is to have NO religious display on common ground (and this obviously does not bar individual religious symbols on headstones). Religious neutrality in government does not violate anyone's religious freedom.

Absolutely not! A Star and Crescent, a statue of Buddha and any other symbol of faith representing the beliefs of those interred there, BELONG there. As usual, you don't get the concept.
It is freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.

They belong ion the individual headstones, not at the entrance as a representation of the entire cemetery.
Oh, and you can't have freedom OF religion without freedom FROM religion.

 

[FA_Q2]

That's not it at all. We just get a little tired of being treated like second class citizens when we have to accomodate the wishes of christians. This whole "war on christmas" argument is a perfect example..

You file suits against us for our decorations and holiday displays, claim to be offended when someone wishes you happiness on December 25th and are pissed off when we use words like "war on Christmas? How friggin hypocritical can you people get?

A Nativity scene in the park does you no harm yet you ask the government to pass judgments restricting the free exercise of religion.

Christians do not, in any way, seek to stop atheists from practicing their belief system, because we feel the Constitution protects you as much as us.

I would fight any attempt by my city to finance a religious holiday display. That would violate the "establishment clause. But simply allowing others to use public property for such a display, doesn't bother me in the least.
Public property belongs to Christians as much as it does to anyone else and passing an ordinance or a court order prohibiting religious displays violates the free expression clause.

WARNING: the following response is in bold so you might want to look away if your sensibilities will be harmed.

Wow, lots of inaccuracies in your response so I will address them point by point.

War on christmas - we are not claiming to be offended when someone wishes us a Merry Christmas. The problem is when idiots like Bill O'Reilly claim that christians are being offended when a store employee says Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas. In other words, he wants all business to address every customer with the christian greeting. It's selfish and pure bullshit.

Except that was not the problem. I think their ‘war on Christmas’ was bullshit but you are confusing the actual complaint. It was not that some random employee stated ‘happy holidays.’ It was that the store policy specifically disallowed ‘marry Christmas’ because it might ‘offend’ someone that was not Christian. The complaint was valid that it is asinine to ask employees not to use the actual official name of the damn holiday. That is asinine in the extreme.

Religious displays on government property should not be allowed, regardless of whether the government or a private individual provides the display because it implies government endorsement over other religions. The only exception is if the government allows ALL religions to put up a display. Allow all or allow none. If a christian display is allowed to the exclusion of others, then harm IS done and it is a violation. Prohibiting that is not violating anyone's freedom of religion. As we said in another thread, there are reasonable limits on our freedoms when exercising them violates someone else's rights.

Atheism is not a "belief system"

Funny that you make this statement because I can guarantee that you cannot post what specific right is violated with a religious display that is located on public land. That is because you do not actually have a right to not be exposed to religion. That does not exist.

No rights are violated by allowing people to have free exercise of their own religion even when they are on public land.

Further, you are the only one that is brining other religions in on it. It was already stated in this thread that is a given. NO ONE HAS A PROBLEM WITH OTHER RELIGIOUS DISPLAYS. PERIOD.

 

[FA_Q2]

Atheism is not a "belief system"[/B]

Atheism
noun

1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a Supreme being or beings.

Atheism | Define Atheism at Dictionary.com

Atheism is by defintion a belief. It certainly isn't based on any form of logic.

How is it logical to believe there is no God? The only possible way to know there isn't a God is if you were everywhere at the same time and at all times. In otherwords, in order to prove there is no God you would have to be a god.

What is reasonable then? I only see two options.

1) You don't know if there is a God or not. You freely admit you don't know there is a God, but recognize that since you can't possibly prove that there isn't one, you leave open the possibility that there is one. We can call this a reasonable agnostic. We can just call it neutral. Doesn't really matter. The danger with this option is that many who adopt agnosticism also adopt the pressumption that because you don't know, no one knows and no one can ever know. That is where agnosticism becomes unreasonable.

2) You know there is a God because of personal exeriences and through eye witness encounters with Diety. At which point it becomes completely unreasonable to ever think there is no God.

So summary, the only reasonable positions about the existence of God is 1) Don't know but possible. or 2) Do know through personal experience.

Anything else is just a belief that may or may not be correct. Which is the problem with atheists and atheism. They think they are reasonable when by every definition of the word, their assumptions are only beliefs and can only ever be beliefs.

The problem with using reason as a basis for belief is that most people have no clue what reason actually is. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with belief at times.

Point 2 is nonsense. TBH, I find it rather confusing that you cannot understand your position is not more or less ridiculous than the people that claim they are better than Christians. That is EXACTLY what you just affirmed; that atheists are not ‘logical’ because they do not believe in God. I would not be pleased if y position was the moral equivalent of the OP.

You likely do not believe in Thor. You would likely say that Thor does not exist. Such is no different than the atheist. Just because an atheist does not have faith at the moment does not mean they are not open to the existence of God should some form of proof through personal experience comes along. I am completely open to that possibility (and hope that someday it will happen) but quite frankly right now I simply do not believe that God exists. There is no evidence at all for his existence that I can see.

That does not make my position illogical and I would ask that you bother to show the same respect to my positions that I give to you for yours.

 

[YWN666]

You file suits against us for our decorations and holiday displays, claim to be offended when someone wishes you happiness on December 25th and are pissed off when we use words like "war on Christmas? How friggin hypocritical can you people get?

A Nativity scene in the park does you no harm yet you ask the government to pass judgments restricting the free exercise of religion.

Christians do not, in any way, seek to stop atheists from practicing their belief system, because we feel the Constitution protects you as much as us.

I would fight any attempt by my city to finance a religious holiday display. That would violate the "establishment clause. But simply allowing others to use public property for such a display, doesn't bother me in the least.
Public property belongs to Christians as much as it does to anyone else and passing an ordinance or a court order prohibiting religious displays violates the free expression clause.

WARNING: the following response is in bold so you might want to look away if your sensibilities will be harmed.

Wow, lots of inaccuracies in your response so I will address them point by point.

War on christmas - we are not claiming to be offended when someone wishes us a Merry Christmas. The problem is when idiots like Bill O'Reilly claim that christians are being offended when a store employee says Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas. In other words, he wants all business to address every customer with the christian greeting. It's selfish and pure bullshit.

Except that was not the problem. I think their ‘war on Christmas’ was bullshit but you are confusing the actual complaint. It was not that some random employee stated ‘happy holidays.’ It was that the store policy specifically disallowed ‘marry Christmas’ because it might ‘offend’ someone that was not Christian. The complaint was valid that it is asinine to ask employees not to use the actual official name of the damn holiday. That is asinine in the extreme.

Except that is not true. They were not forbidden from saying Merry Christmas. They were asked to use a generic Happy Holidays if they did not know the religious beliefs of the customer to avoid alienating customers because as we know, the christmas season is all about money. If they DID know the customer or the customer said MC first, they could say it back.

 

[YWN666]

You file suits against us for our decorations and holiday displays, claim to be offended when someone wishes you happiness on December 25th and are pissed off when we use words like "war on Christmas? How friggin hypocritical can you people get?

A Nativity scene in the park does you no harm yet you ask the government to pass judgments restricting the free exercise of religion.

Christians do not, in any way, seek to stop atheists from practicing their belief system, because we feel the Constitution protects you as much as us.

I would fight any attempt by my city to finance a religious holiday display. That would violate the "establishment clause. But simply allowing others to use public property for such a display, doesn't bother me in the least.
Public property belongs to Christians as much as it does to anyone else and passing an ordinance or a court order prohibiting religious displays violates the free expression clause.

WARNING: the following response is in bold so you might want to look away if your sensibilities will be harmed.

Wow, lots of inaccuracies in your response so I will address them point by point.

War on christmas - we are not claiming to be offended when someone wishes us a Merry Christmas. The problem is when idiots like Bill O'Reilly claim that christians are being offended when a store employee says Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas. In other words, he wants all business to address every customer with the christian greeting. It's selfish and pure bullshit.

Except that was not the problem. I think their ‘war on Christmas’ was bullshit but you are confusing the actual complaint. It was not that some random employee stated ‘happy holidays.’ It was that the store policy specifically disallowed ‘marry Christmas’ because it might ‘offend’ someone that was not Christian. The complaint was valid that it is asinine to ask employees not to use the actual official name of the damn holiday. That is asinine in the extreme.

Religious displays on government property should not be allowed, regardless of whether the government or a private individual provides the display because it implies government endorsement over other religions. The only exception is if the government allows ALL religions to put up a display. Allow all or allow none. If a christian display is allowed to the exclusion of others, then harm IS done and it is a violation. Prohibiting that is not violating anyone's freedom of religion. As we said in another thread, there are reasonable limits on our freedoms when exercising them violates someone else's rights.

Atheism is not a "belief system"

Funny that you make this statement because I can guarantee that you cannot post what specific right is violated with a religious display that is located on public land. That is because you do not actually have a right to not be exposed to religion. That does not exist.

No rights are violated by allowing people to have free exercise of their own religion even when they are on public land.

The Supreme Court in their interpretation of the Constitution has said that the state cannot endorse one religion by erecting a religious display on government property. There have been exceptions allowed when many religions were allowed to put up a display but when the one display was allowed and not the others, it is forbidden. That has been made crystal clear a number of times. We have a right not to have religion forced in us by our government.

 

[YWN666]

Here is more on this asinine "war on christmas" controversy:

War on Christmas - RationalWiki

 

[Ernie S.]

For the THOUSANDTH time, this is not about being offended by a religious symbol or word. It is about respect in sharing common ground. People of many different beliefs and non-belief "share" government resources and it is pretty obnoxious when one portion of the population decides to commandeer those resources by putting up their own religious display to the exclusion of others. If Arlington National Cemetery erected a display at the entrance with a huge Muslim star and crescent, you can bet that the christians would have a shit fit. Why, then, is it OK for them to erect a christian cross? Unless they can erect a display for every one of the thousands of religious beliefs, then the fairest way is to have NO religious display on common ground (and this obviously does not bar individual religious symbols on headstones). Religious neutrality in government does not violate anyone's religious freedom.

Absolutely not! A Star and Crescent, a statue of Buddha and any other symbol of faith representing the beliefs of those interred there, BELONG there. As usual, you don't get the concept.
It is freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.

They belong ion the individual headstones, not at the entrance as a representation of the entire cemetery.

That would be the best solution, but a bit impractical to replace thousands of grave markers. Better to allow any religion who wants a symbol, install one along side the Christian cross.

Oh, and you can't have freedom OF religion without freedom FROM religion.

Absolute malarkey!

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Congress can not make laws interfering with the free expression of religion.

Note: see valid use of bold font to emphasize a word or phrase.

Nothing you have written here is worth 100% emphasis.

 

[Sunshine]

When people are sick and when they bury their dead people want dearly held beliefs to be made apparent and should be allowed to do so. I am so sick of certain factions trying to rid this country of any religious symbol whatsoever.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I never said you can't prove a negative. I said you can't prove that something does not exist and that inability is not proof that the "something" DOES exist. It just means that the challenge to prove non-existence is logically meaningless. Have you ever heard of "Russell's teapot"?

Russell's Teapot - RationalWiki

Except that it is possible to prove things do not exist.

Then prove that leprechauns don't exist.

One of the great things about logic, you can prove anything.

1. I have never seen a leprechaun.
2. I have seen everything that exists.

1. Therefore leprechauns do not exist.

Which is exactly why it is gobbledegook.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

For the THOUSANDTH time, this is not about being offended by a religious symbol or word. It is about respect in sharing common ground. People of many different beliefs and non-belief "share" government resources and it is pretty obnoxious when one portion of the population decides to commandeer those resources by putting up their own religious display to the exclusion of others. If Arlington National Cemetery erected a display at the entrance with a huge Muslim star and crescent, you can bet that the christians would have a shit fit. Why, then, is it OK for them to erect a christian cross? Unless they can erect a display for every one of the thousands of religious beliefs, then the fairest way is to have NO religious display on common ground (and this obviously does not bar individual religious symbols on headstones). Religious neutrality in government does not violate anyone's religious freedom.

Absolutely not! A Star and Crescent, a statue of Buddha and any other symbol of faith representing the beliefs of those interred there, BELONG there. As usual, you don't get the concept.
It is freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.

They belong ion the individual headstones, not at the entrance as a representation of the entire cemetery.
Oh, and you can't have freedom OF religion without freedom FROM religion.

Point out what law keeps me from knocking on your door and telling you about my religion.

Hint, don't waste your time, only an idiot that uses bold font would think one exists.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Except that is not true. They were not forbidden from saying Merry Christmas. They were asked to use a generic Happy Holidays if they did not know the religious beliefs of the customer to avoid alienating customers because as we know, the christmas season is all about money. If they DID know the customer or the customer said MC first, they could say it back.

Funny, I followed your lonks, and actually had to put a little effort into it, but Haniity never said that was the policy, nor did he complain that employees were asked not to offend customers. What he pointed out is that it is stupid for a store to have "Happy Holiday" advertisements that were all about Christmas.

Frankly, the only people who would have a problem with anyone pointing that out are idiots that use bold font.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

WARNING: the following response is in bold so you might want to look away if your sensibilities will be harmed.

Wow, lots of inaccuracies in your response so I will address them point by point.

War on christmas - we are not claiming to be offended when someone wishes us a Merry Christmas. The problem is when idiots like Bill O'Reilly claim that christians are being offended when a store employee says Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas. In other words, he wants all business to address every customer with the christian greeting. It's selfish and pure bullshit.

Except that was not the problem. I think their ‘war on Christmas’ was bullshit but you are confusing the actual complaint. It was not that some random employee stated ‘happy holidays.’ It was that the store policy specifically disallowed ‘marry Christmas’ because it might ‘offend’ someone that was not Christian. The complaint was valid that it is asinine to ask employees not to use the actual official name of the damn holiday. That is asinine in the extreme.

Religious displays on government property should not be allowed, regardless of whether the government or a private individual provides the display because it implies government endorsement over other religions. The only exception is if the government allows ALL religions to put up a display. Allow all or allow none. If a christian display is allowed to the exclusion of others, then harm IS done and it is a violation. Prohibiting that is not violating anyone's freedom of religion. As we said in another thread, there are reasonable limits on our freedoms when exercising them violates someone else's rights.

Atheism is not a "belief system"

Funny that you make this statement because I can guarantee that you cannot post what specific right is violated with a religious display that is located on public land. That is because you do not actually have a right to not be exposed to religion. That does not exist.

No rights are violated by allowing people to have free exercise of their own religion even when they are on public land.

The Supreme Court in their interpretation of the Constitution has said that the state cannot endorse one religion by erecting a religious display on government property. There have been exceptions allowed when many religions were allowed to put up a display but when the one display was allowed and not the others, it is forbidden. That has been made crystal clear a number of times. We have a right not to have religion forced in us by our government.

Really?

Texas won a case where the 10 Commandments are displayed on the grounds of the capital in 2005.

The court ruled that displaying the nativity scene on public property was legal in Pawtucket in 1984.

Every single piece of US currency has the words "In God we Trust" on it.

Care to explain all of that given your declaration that all of those are illegal under any circumstances?

Maybe you should stop using bold font, it has rotter your brain.

By the way, care to tell me again that I only resort to insulting bold font when I cannot address the issues? Because I can clearly do both, unlike people who use bold font.

 

[Sunshine]

I never said you can't prove a negative. I said you can't prove that something does not exist and that inability is not proof that the "something" DOES exist. It just means that the challenge to prove non-existence is logically meaningless. Have you ever heard of "Russell's teapot"?

Russell's Teapot - RationalWiki

Except that it is possible to prove things do not exist.

Then prove that leprechauns don't exist.

Who says they don't?

 

[daveman]

To whomever wrote the above description of the almost plane crash. Get a fuckin grip!!!!

I wrote it. Moron.

Fly with better pilots !!! I've had several almost crashes from overloaded cargo when I was smugglin. Stupid fucking Colombians !!! Stop whining !!! The pilot is in absolute charge of weight and balance on the loading of an aircraft. You should have pulled his ass out of the cockpit upon landing and beat the stupid cocksucker to an inch of his life. Also he should have had his medical removed for life for almost getting everyone killed.

That is all.

In the military, you don't get to pick and choose who your aircrew is. Moron. And 86 passengers and no cargo will NOT overload a C-130. Moron.

THAT is all.

Dumbass... 86 passengers with gear avg 200 lbs? 17,200 lbs? You are probably right that cargo(passengers) was not the cause of the irradic flying.

I know I'm right. The cargo capacity of the -130H is 72,000 lbs. Moron.

So if you are too much of a pussy to kick the pilot's ass for almost getting you killed that's not my concern.

Yeah, I was supposed to storm the cockpit of a dark aircraft at night with 86 people trying to egress as quickly as possible and kick a guy's ass because I didn't know what caused the accident.

It's possible you don't know how stupid you are. I don't know how, since your stupid words are right there, but who knows?

Praying is stupid.

What's REALLY funny is that you think you can shame anyone out of their faith. Oe noes! A random anonymous internet retard thinks praying is stupid! I'd better stop!

Which brings us back to the topic at hand. Spend less time praying and more time making sure the aircraft is airworthy and the pilot is held responsible for safe proceedures. "God" had nothing to do with it.

The depth of your ignorance of the military is astounding. If you're not aircrew, you don't get to inspect the airplane. Attempting it will get you facedown on the concrete with a rifle barrel behind your ear.

I can't wait to hear how you'd kick the Security Forces guy's ass who put you on the ground.

Reading your whiney little story reminds me of why I never joined the military.

ASVAB scores waaaaay too low, huh?

There's a list of things you should stop doing, because you're inadequate to the task:

1. Discussing military matters.

2. Acting tough.

3. Pretending you can think.

Just a tip from your Uncle Dave. It'll save you endless humiliation on the internet.

 

[daveman]

Just because an atheist does not have faith at the moment does not mean they are not open to the existence of God should some form of proof through personal experience comes along.

Hi.

Former atheist, current Christian.

It can indeed happen.

 

[daveman]

Except that it is possible to prove things do not exist.

Then prove that leprechauns don't exist.

Who says they don't?

I'm after her Lucky Charms.

 

[BreezeWood]

Just because an atheist does not have faith at the moment does not mean they are not open to the existence of God should some form of proof through personal experience comes along.

.

... does not mean they are not open to the existence of God should some form of proof through personal experience comes along.


that would also prove there is no need for Christianity ... and that simple beliefs are enough.

.

 

[Tuatara]

Did I say there was no such thing. I asked who on the board here was being militant? You have a very dishonest debate style. Is it the only way you can communicate?

Good Gaea's gargantuan gazongas.

I never said anyone on this board, you raging imbecile.

Now stop with the strawman. I know it makes you feel better about yourself, but it's dishonest.

I was stating my original question. I never once said that there was no such thing as a militant atheist which you accused me of in post # 260. Your comprehension skills are lacking.