Atheists, smarter than religious people

I see.

So basically you just wanted to add 'hypocrite' to the earlier 'dog' and 'brainwashed' insults you hurled?

OK........still not sure how that validates your thesis that atheism is a 'smarter' alternative, as the title of the thread indicates, and you wrote in support of.

Also, just to clarify, if a Christian tells you 'I am a sinner' , and then they sin.......are they a hypocrite?

Like I said to JL...atheists also have a tough time acknowledging that their belief system is nothing more than a belief system.

People in a belief system are like that. Doesn't make you a bad person...and it is good for laughs.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Like I said to JL...atheists also have a tough time acknowledging that their belief system is nothing more than a belief system.

People in a belief system are like that. Doesn't make you a bad person...and it is good for laughs.

Next you will be telling us that you don't have the BELIEF that the agnostic position is better than the "internet atheist's" position, but you will have a tough time convincing me of that proposition.

edgarblythe wrote:

real life wrote:

edgarblythe wrote:

My last reponse to rl may have been too hard to find in the last post I made. It was an a2k glitch. But, this really is my final post here, at least for the time being. This was what I wrote:

I tried for several years to find belief within myself. Lived and breathed church and Bible until many folks expected I would become a minister and were surprised years later, when I did not. I simply could not dupe myself.



So, rl's suggestion only works on those predisposed to belief without anything real to go on.

Well, EB, you constantly ask for 'evidence' but dont state what type of 'evidence' would satisfy you.

My point is that 'natural' evidence of the 'supernatural' is probably a contradiction in terms, so a different tack must be taken.

I have found that very often I have received answers to prayer regarding things over which I had no control.

I am not talking about a good feeling, or similar subjective inner results of prayer, although that can seem emotionally satisfying.

I don't pray asking for, or expecting good feelings. So I don't think a predisposition to believe has any relevance to what I was discussing.

My asking for evidence is only rhetorical, since it is obvious there isn't any. Nothing will convince me a god exists, particularly one of the sort you may pray to.

OK, then, since the statement 'there is no God' apparently isn't falsifiable (at least in your view), would you agree that it does not qualify as a scientific statement?

If so, how does basing your view on an unproven, and unprovable statement that is outside the realm of science make you any different from those you criticize?

real life wrote:

edgarblythe wrote:

real life wrote:

edgarblythe wrote:

My last reponse to rl may have been too hard to find in the last post I made. It was an a2k glitch. But, this really is my final post here, at least for the time being. This was what I wrote:

I tried for several years to find belief within myself. Lived and breathed church and Bible until many folks expected I would become a minister and were surprised years later, when I did not. I simply could not dupe myself.



So, rl's suggestion only works on those predisposed to belief without anything real to go on.

Well, EB, you constantly ask for 'evidence' but dont state what type of 'evidence' would satisfy you.

My point is that 'natural' evidence of the 'supernatural' is probably a contradiction in terms, so a different tack must be taken.

I have found that very often I have received answers to prayer regarding things over which I had no control.

I am not talking about a good feeling, or similar subjective inner results of prayer, although that can seem emotionally satisfying.

I don't pray asking for, or expecting good feelings. So I don't think a predisposition to believe has any relevance to what I was discussing.

My asking for evidence is only rhetorical, since it is obvious there isn't any. Nothing will convince me a god exists, particularly one of the sort you may pray to.

OK, then, since the statement 'there is no God' apparently isn't falsifiable (at least in your view), would you agree that it does not qualify as a scientific statement?

If so, how does basing your view on an unproven, and unprovable statement that is outside the realm of science make you any different from those you criticize?

That there is no God is a statement of fact. Scientific or not, it's that simple. Otherwise you people could make up anything else that strikes your fancy and there ya go. I am not making my statements as a criticism of your religious belief, however stung you may feel. Just voicing one atheist's position on the matter.

real life wrote:

I see.

So basically you just wanted to add 'hypocrite' to the earlier 'dog' and 'brainwashed' insults you hurled?

OK........still not sure how that validates your thesis that atheism is a 'smarter' alternative, as the title of the thread indicates, and you wrote in support of.

Also, just to clarify, if a Christian tells you 'I am a sinner' , and then they sin.......are they a hypocrite?

There's really no point in running in circles with this. This was never my "thesis". I didn't start this thread. I simply commented and spoke with the author of this thread. Then you jumped in to "save the day" or whatever because you were feeling a bit slighted by my comments apparently. Were they a bit rude? Sure. Am I a bit bitter towards christianity? Absolutely. I have a every right to be.

I thought part of christian beliefs is to forgive? To show grace and mercy to those who "don't understand"? So where's your forgiveness real life? Where is this "grace" and "mercy" that your "god" has so kindly extended to you? Why must you be sitting on a little perch waiting for someone to bring offence to you so you can jump all over them and show what a great "christian" you are? Doesn't the bible say:

Acts 24:15
15 I have hope in God, which they themselves also accept, that there will be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and the unjust. 16 This being so, I myself always strive to have a conscience without offense toward God and men.

And what about this:

Romans 16:16-18
17 Now I urge you, brethren, note those who cause divisions and offenses, contrary to the doctrine which you learned, and avoid them. 18 For those who are such do not serve our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly, and by smooth words and flattering speech deceive the hearts of the simple.

I don't really think you are suppose to be talking to me right now. According to this anyway. Oh, but wait:



No... wait... you are suppose to let me slap your other cheek AND give me your cloak. You are not suppose to repay me for however it is you feel I am treating you. Hmmm, I'm confused. How exactly are you suppose to be towards me real life? I'm not finding any clarity in these here scriptures. Can you clarify that for me?

Oh yeah... your question. The answer is simple. Actions speak louder than words. The problem I see with some christians is that they try to get their words to speak louder than their actions. Unfortunately, they are the only ones who are fooled by this.

Frank, you seem to have forgotten my most important assertion to you regarding my "atheism." Remember my distinction between "active atheism", wherein people seem to follow a doctrine that proclaims the "existence" of a No-God and worships Him (Madeline O'Hare or O'Hara, is an example) and people like myself who simply turn away from theism because it makes no sense to them. The first ARE, as you say, BELIEVING atheists; the second are simply non-theists. Mine is a perspective (i.e., a position from which theism makes no sense), that of "activie atheists" is a belief system.
My other assertion that you seem to have forgotten is that agnostics like you (perhaps they can be called believing agnostics) argue that since neither atheists nor theists can provde "unambiguous evidence" for their positions, there is an equal chance that both can be either right or wrong. That suggests to me that you consider it possible (i.e., at least 50% likely) that there IS a god.

RL, why should an atheist be required to provide "scientific proof" for the non-existence of a god when theistic believers cannot do the same?

I don't know how to make it any clearer. Science knocks out all the claims made by religion in the physical world. Since you guys arbitrarily claim there is a god, I don't need further evidence.

edgarblythe wrote:

I don't know how to make it any clearer. Science knocks out all the claims made by religion in the physical world. Since you guys arbitrarily claim there is a god, I don't need further evidence.

What scientific evidence proves there is no God?

According to one book of fiction, the claim that the world could not have evolved by chance is the final proof of the non-existence of god.

The argument goes something like this:
"I refuse to prove that I exist", says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But", says man, "the world is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."
"Oh dear", says God, "I hadn't thought of that", and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.




(Adapted to to this thread from "the Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy" on the Babel Fish. It is really the Babel Fish that is the dead giveaway, but since creationists think that the world could not have evolved by chance, the argument is the same.)