Is Atheism More Likely To Be True Than Deism?

Thomas's point about God-stories is the main reason I feel confident in rejecting Deism, Theism etc. God-stories are mutually contradicting plagiarisms of each other, particularly the monotheisms. It's safest to conclude these stories come from our need to understand the universe in human terms (the pathetic fallacy), rather than assume their divine truth. No other truth comes to us by way of divine revelation, why should we trifle with any idea which says the ultimate truth should come to us in this way?

This is my punt at talking sense to XXSpadeMasterXX, anyhow.

I always knew who I am...

Glad you recognize who you are now...

Nope...I am ready for you to answer the questions I have asked you in my very last post directed at you...

Here it is again...

http://able2know.org/topic/211189-7#post-5345460

How do you know that the ways to understanding the universe (the pathetic fallacy) is not through Divine Revelation?

Is it because you believe it? Reject it? Are unsure? Or are none?

If it is because you either believe or reject this is so, Does this not = a belief? How can you reject that this is so, but it is not because you believe you reject it is so? If you are unsure, how could you find your own personal subjective answer, if you deny that you believe or reject? Which means you must believe or reject, which means you must believe it is so...If it is none, how could you be none? Unless you believe you are neither? Which means you either believe or reject, which means you must believe it is so...

This is my punt at talking sense to medium-density, anyhow.

Beliefs are held for one reason or another. My main reason for doubting divine revelation with respect to the origin of the universe is the fact that all our testable, repeatable, reliable discoveries about existence come about via the scientific method, which in many ways is an opposite of revelation.

My whole point with raising this thread was that, despite the tediously repeated truth that god(s) cannot be proved or disproved this doesn't mean that nothing worthwhile can be argued in this sphere. I and others are arguing that personifying the emergence of the universe (if indeed it did emerge, rather than having always existed -neither conclusion lending itself well to the human imagination) is a bad bet, and that though we cannot give 100% assurance as to atheism's rectitude, we nevertheless think it likelier.

Do you believe that beliefs can not give you testable, repeatable, reliable discoveries about existence which come about via the scientific method? Or do you reject that beliefs can? If you reject that beliefs can, would you say that that is an actual belief? Or an actual rejection of beliefs? When you say that the scientific method can give you testable, repeatable, reliable discoveries...Is this because you believe it can? Or reject it can do so?

Science came from philosophy...and if you live in the U.S. 71% of all universities were founded by Christians...including ones that are well known for science...

You can not ask for rain, and then hate or reject the rainmaker...

So even if that claimed was true it just mean that people who are believers in superstitious nonsense can funded institutions that are rationals in parts.

As far as the percents of the US population that are believers in any deep sense that is no knowable given the social pressures to be consider Christians or at least a believers in some such nonsense.

Hell without that you can not even be a damn boy scout in the US.

The point is, that without beliefs your very science would not exist...there certainly is no reason to believe that an atheist who rejects beliefs, believed building any such foundation or institution to support science, ever had, or believed to use it in the way that atheists currently claim they do to try to validate anything...Like many claim they do...because by their own accord, they don't believe, but reject...since they do not believe...

So you can not use what the believers and dreamers thought of, and had done, and were instituting, and founded at your own discretion, and then claim how ridiculous it is to believe something, anything...because you have to be an enormous hypocrite...Or you have to be so illogical to actually think beliefs had nothing to do with science becoming, because you believe it had not...but it actually had by a belief it could...which just "proves" that rejections are just being stubborn...not about validating anything like an atheist claims...because if true, they would have the dignity to claim they do believe they use science to disbelieve...but that rejections are the reasons why, which means it would never had existed in the first place, or exist, or continue to exist...Unless someone who believed thought it could exist...not an atheist...

And if any atheist claims they founded anything scientific to help advance science, and put behind beliefs, then they are a fool of fools...How could they have possibly founded a scientific institution to put behind beliefs, if they had not believed they could do so before it had happened?

Now go ahead and explain to me how the dreamers who believed that science would come were as illogical and likely as a "tooth fairy" since you can not "prove" a negative...ridiculous...the ego's of some people...really...

And, I do commend you for actually taking the time to answer my post, but I noticed you did not answer a single question I have asked...directly...evasion throughout...

If I take your post at face value, you are saying you actually do believe things?

Is one of them that you believe you do not believe certain notions?

How could you believe anything? But when it comes to a God or Gods, it is now a rejection that is not a belief? Can you explain how this is possible? Is it possible for me to reject your rejection? Is this now a belief again? Is it possible you reject believers beliefs? Is this not a belief once more? What is not a belief, what do you actually believe? And what do you actually reject?

I know you think you've devised a marvelous word trap trump card with this, but you actually haven't. Can I suggest you stop repeating yourself and engage with the arguments before you?



Although on the basis of the above perhaps not.

Sure! You can suggest that if you would like too...My perspective, Can you see that a question can be an answer? What arguments do you allege I have not engaged in? And why do you think I have not?

Are you alleging that a non-believer brought forth science? Please engage me, and explain how this is possible?