It's Irrational To be An Atheist

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, betsy said:

bwaahaha 

Great. Now please explain why you consider a simple correlation between Zeus and lightning or the Hindu Dashavatara and evolution as funny, but a simple correlation involving Genesis as evidence?

[Goddess]

16 minutes ago, betsy said:

No it's not redundant.

Large font time!

  It is an explanation of his statement - that he's saying, there is evidence, 

but it's not sufficient.

"The evidence isn't sufficient."

"There is evidence but it isn't sufficient."

^^^ Redundant ^^^

Anyhoo......

The religion switch in your brain, which overrides rationality or logical thought, is fully in the "ON" position, as you clearly cannot even follow what Slick is saying to you, nor notice that those 2 sentences, when placed together, are redundant.

Your god must be so proud of you.

[betsy]

58 minutes ago, Slick said:

Great. Now please explain why you consider a simple correlation between Zeus and lightning or the Hindu Dashavatara and evolution as funny, but a simple correlation involving Genesis as evidence?

Re-read my posts!  If you don't get it, what more can I say?

[betsy]

57 minutes ago, Goddess said:

"The evidence isn't sufficient."

"There is evidence but it isn't sufficient."

^^^ Redundant ^^^

Anyhoo......

The religion switch in your brain, which overrides rationality or logical thought, is fully in the "ON" position, as you clearly cannot even follow what Slick is saying to you, nor notice that those 2 sentences, when placed together, are redundant.

Your god must be so proud of you.

 

You think it is redundant, but it is not.  

[Guest]

36 minutes ago, betsy said:

Re-read my posts!  If you don't get it, what more can I say?

Ok, well even if  you are too proud to admit a mistake in presenting that NAS quote as evidence then hopefully this conversation about my position as an agnostic atheist has caused you to actually examine it. Don't feel bad, we all accidentally latch on to bits of information we didn't fully read or understand from time to time. That's why conversations that force us to examine our positions are so valuable. Cheers.

[betsy]

21 hours ago, Slick said:

Ok, well even if  you are too proud to admit a mistake in presenting that NAS quote as evidence

 

 

Quote

....then hopefully this conversation about my position as an agnostic atheist has caused you to actually examine it.

I did.

  Using your own explanation to prove that you're agnostic!   Period.  Don't feel bad, we all accidentally latch on to bits of information we didn't fully read or understand from time to time. That's why conversations that force us to examine our positions are so valuable. Cheers.

Now, re-read our exchanges.   Read my explanation(s) again.  Have a nice day.

Edited July 27, 2018 by betsy

[betsy]

I just have to reiterate this post on this particular thread.

 

 

Which is why atheism is an irrational position, since it directly flies against CUMULATIVE EVIDENCES.

 

Cumulative evidences are CORROBORATING evidences - evidences that stack up, lending support to the possibility of God's existence!  

From the observed claims by science (which they say support or compatible with Theistic Evolution)........ to the complexities and finely-tuned universe..........

.......and to MILLIONS OF TESTIMONIES who claim Godly experience(s)  not only from believers, but from atheists/agnostics who've been transformed, and/or, convinced to become believers!  Some of these atheists not only became believers, but they'd also became prominent apologists!  The current most prominent would include Francis Collins, William lane Craig (remember him?  the one who knocked down Richard Dawkins? ), Lee Strobel.......

 

Atheism has nothing to stand on.  It relies solely on BLIND faith!

Edited August 1, 2018 by betsy

[betsy]

Francis Collins and Richard Dawkins have had a debate, organized by Time Magazine in 2006.

 

Quote

 

Very interestingly the article has some excerpts of a discussion/debate between “God Delusion” top scientist Prof. Richard Dawkins, who also seems to have become the standard bearer of the anti-religion brigade now, and another, perhaps not so well known, but quite distinguished scientist, Dr. Francis Collins. Dr. Collins is a physician-geneticist who led the Human Genome Project and was nominated by US President Barrack Obama to and then unanimously confirmed by the US Senate as Director of the (US) National Institutes of Health in 2009 and, I believe, currently serves in that position. Dr. Collins is also an evangelical Christian.

It gives a background of Richard Dawkins and some other anti-religion scientists. They have their theological adversaries but most of whom may not be too much into science. Fascinatingly, for me at least, the article then takes the view of the majority of Americans who want a middle ground where they can have both science and religion. But for that the article needs to balance the tough Dawkins with distinguished scientists who are also deeply religious and may “credibly argue the widespread hope that science and God are in harmony–that, indeed, science is of God”.

The article mentions a few distinguished scientists who are religious, finally zeroing in on Dr. Francis Collins. Then it gives some extracts of a 90 minute debate TIME magazine arranged between Dawkins and Collins.

 

At the end of the article TIME asks for concluding thoughts. I just loved the concluding thoughts of Collins. To view it, see page 9 of the article and read the top paragraph. I can fully identify with those words of Dr. Collins, though I have been a software-technologist for around a quarter of a century and not a top-scientist like Collins, and though my spiritual belief about the whys may differ in some respects from Dr. Collins’ belief. My faith in God does not compromise my ability in any way to think and function as a software-technologist (I am a believer in God for the past 15 to 20 years or so).

 

Now that I know that Collins and co. are refuting Dawkins I can easily point young scientists & intellectuals who are getting swayed by Dawkins & co. but have an open mind, to his refuters like Collins.

 

https://iami1.wordpress.com/2012/08/09/god-vs-science-time-nov-2006-dr-collins-a-standard-bearer-for-scientists-who-believe-in-god/

Edited August 1, 2018 by betsy

[betsy]

Here is part of that debate between Collins and Dawkins.

 

Quote

 

DAWKINS: The question of whether there exists a supernatural creator, a God, is one of the most important that we have to answer. I think that it is a scientific question. My answer is no.

TIME: Dr. Collins, you believe that science is compatible with Christian faith.

COLLINS: Yes. God's existence is either true or not. But calling it a scientific question implies that the tools of science can provide the answer. From my perspective, God cannot be completely contained within nature, and therefore God's existence is outside of science's ability to really weigh in.

 

 

DAWKINS: Yes. For centuries the most powerful argument for God's existence from the physical world was the so-called argument from design: Living things are so beautiful and elegant and so apparently purposeful, they could only have been made by an intelligent designer. But Darwin provided a simpler explanation. His way is a gradual, incremental improvement starting from very simple beginnings and working up step by tiny incremental step to more complexity, more elegance, more adaptive perfection. Each step is not too improbable for us to countenance, but when you add them up cumulatively over millions of years, you get these monsters of improbability, like the human brain and the rain forest. It should warn us against ever again assuming that because something is complicated, God must have done it.

COLLINS: I don't see that Professor Dawkins' basic account of evolution is incompatible with God's having designed it.

TIME: When would this have occurred?

COLLINS: By being outside of nature, God is also outside of space and time. Hence, at the moment of the creation of the universe, God could also have activated evolution, with full knowledge of how it would turn out, perhaps even including our having this conversation. The idea that he could both foresee the future and also give us spirit and free will to carry out our own desires becomes entirely acceptable.

DAWKINS: I think that's a tremendous cop-out. If God wanted to create life and create humans, it would be slightly odd that he should choose the extraordinarily roundabout way of waiting for 10 billion years before life got started and then waiting for another 4 billion years until you got human beings capable of worshipping and sinning and all the other things religious people are interested in.

COLLINS: Who are we to say that that was an odd way to do it? I don't think that it is God's purpose to make his intention absolutely obvious to us. If it suits him to be a deity that we must seek without being forced to, would it not have been sensible for him to use the mechanism of evolution without posting obvious road signs to reveal his role in creation?

 

 

TIME: Both your books suggest that if the universal constants, the six or more characteristics of our universe, had varied at all, it would have made life impossible. Dr. Collins, can you provide an example?

COLLINS: The gravitational constant, if it were off by one part in a hundred million million, then the expansion of the universe after the Big Bang would not have occurred in the fashion that was necessary for life to occur. When you look at that evidence, it is very difficult to adopt the view that this was just chance. But if you are willing to consider the possibility of a designer, this becomes a rather plausible explanation for what is otherwise an exceedingly improbable event--namely, our existence.

DAWKINS: People who believe in God conclude there must have been a divine knob twiddler who twiddled the knobs of these half-dozen constants to get them exactly right. The problem is that this says, because something is vastly improbable, we need a God to explain it. But that God himself would be even more improbable. Physicists have come up with other explanations. One is to say that these six constants are not free to vary. Some unified theory will eventually show that they are as locked in as the circumference and the diameter of a circle. That reduces the odds of them all independently just happening to fit the bill. The other way is the multiverse way. That says that maybe the universe we are in is one of a very large number of universes. The vast majority will not contain life because they have the wrong gravitational constant or the wrong this constant or that constant. But as the number of universes climbs, the odds mount that a tiny minority of universes will have the right fine-tuning.

COLLINS: This is an interesting choice. Barring a theoretical resolution, which I think is unlikely, you either have to say there are zillions of parallel universes out there that we can't observe at present or you have to say there was a plan. I actually find the argument of the existence of a God who did the planning more compelling than the bubbling of all these multiverses. So Occam's razor--Occam says you should choose the explanation that is most simple and straightforward--leads me more to believe in God than in the multiverse, which seems quite a stretch of the imagination.

DAWKINS: I accept that there may be things far grander and more incomprehensible than we can possibly imagine. What I can't understand is why you invoke improbability and yet you will not admit that you're shooting yourself in the foot by postulating something just as improbable, magicking into existence the word God.

COLLINS: My God is not improbable to me. He has no need of a creation story for himself or to be fine-tuned by something else. God is the answer to all of those "How must it have come to be" questions.

DAWKINS: I think that's the mother and father of all cop-outs. It's an honest scientific quest to discover where this apparent improbability comes from. Now Dr. Collins says, "Well, God did it. And God needs no explanation because God is outside all this." Well, what an incredible evasion of the responsibility to explain. Scientists don't do that. Scientists say, "We're working on it. We're struggling to understand."

COLLINS: Certainly science should continue to see whether we can find evidence for multiverses that might explain why our own universe seems to be so finely tuned. But I do object to the assumption that anything that might be outside of nature is ruled out of the conversation. That's an impoverished view of the kinds of questions we humans can ask, such as "Why am I here?", "What happens after we die?", "Is there a God?" If you refuse to acknowledge their appropriateness, you end up with a zero probability of God after examining the natural world because it doesn't convince you on a proof basis. But if your mind is open about whether God might exist, you can point to aspects of the universe that are consistent with that conclusion.

DAWKINS: To me, the right approach is to say we are profoundly ignorant of these matters. We need to work on them. But to suddenly say the answer is God--it's that that seems to me to close off the discussion.

TIME: Could the answer be God?

DAWKINS: There could be something incredibly grand and incomprehensible and beyond our present understanding.

COLLINS: That's God.

 

DAWKINS: Yes. But it could be any of a billion Gods. It could be God of the Martians or of the inhabitants of Alpha Centauri. The chance of its being a particular God, Yahweh, the God of Jesus, is vanishingly small--at the least, the onus is on you to demonstrate why you think that's the case.

TIME: The Book of Genesis has led many conservative Protestants to oppose evolution and some to insist that the earth is only 6,000 years old.

COLLINS: There are sincere believers who interpret Genesis 1 and 2 in a very literal way that is inconsistent, frankly, with our knowledge of the universe's age or of how living organisms are related to each other. St. Augustine wrote that basically it is not possible to understand what was being described in Genesis. It was not intended as a science textbook. It was intended as a description of who God was, who we are and what our relationship is supposed to be with God. Augustine explicitly warns against a very narrow perspective that will put our faith at risk of looking ridiculous. If you step back from that one narrow interpretation, what the Bible describes is very consistent with the Big Bang.

 

TIME: Dr. Collins, the Resurrection is an essential argument of Christian faith, but doesn't it, along with the virgin birth and lesser miracles, fatally undermine the scientific method, which depends on the constancy of natural laws?

COLLINS: If you're willing to answer yes to a God outside of nature, then there's nothing inconsistent with God on rare occasions choosing to invade the natural world in a way that appears miraculous. If God made the natural laws, why could he not violate them when it was a particularly significant moment for him to do so? And if you accept the idea that Christ was also divine, which I do, then his Resurrection is not in itself a great logical leap.

TIME: Doesn't the very notion of miracles throw off science?

COLLINS: Not at all. If you are in the camp I am, one place where science and faith could touch each other is in the investigation of supposedly miraculous events.

DAWKINS: If ever there was a slamming of the door in the face of constructive investigation, it is the word miracle. To a medieval peasant, a radio would have seemed like a miracle. All kinds of things may happen which we by the lights of today's science would classify as a miracle just as medieval science might a Boeing 747. Francis keeps saying things like "From the perspective of a believer." Once you buy into the position of faith, then suddenly you find yourself losing all of your natural skepticism and your scientific--really scientific--credibility. I'm sorry to be so blunt.

COLLINS: Richard, I actually agree with the first part of what you said. But I would challenge the statement that my scientific instincts are any less rigorous than yours. The difference is that my presumption of the possibility of God and therefore the supernatural is not zero, and yours is.

 

MORE.....

 

http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1555132-6,00.html

 

 

Dawkins tend to contradict science - he did imply that the tools of science can somehow prove God's existence or not.  Well, if God is supernatural - and, that's what He is - obviously Dawkins had forgotten that the supernatural is outside the realm of science.

 

No wonder Richard Dawkins was described as "sophomoric" for his book The God Delusion - he debates like one. 

Did he forget what science is?

 

Quote

"Science is a particular way of knowing about the world. In science, explanations are limited to those based on observations and experiments that can be substantiated by other scientists."

https://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/site/faq.html

 

 

Edited August 1, 2018 by betsy

[Guest]

14 hours ago, betsy said:

Which is why atheism is an irrational position, since it directly flies against CUMULATIVE EVIDENCES.

 

Cumulative evidences are CORROBORATING evidences - evidences that stack up, lending support to the possibility of God's existence!  

From the observed claims by science (which they say support or compatible with Theistic Evolution)........ to the complexities and finely-tuned universe..........

.......and to MILLIONS OF TESTIMONIES who claim Godly experience(s)  not only from believers, but from atheists/agnostics who've been transformed, and/or, convinced to become believers!  Some of these atheists not only became believers, but they'd also became prominent apologists!  The current most prominent would include Francis Collins, William lane Craig (remember him?  the one who knocked down Richard Dawkins? ), Lee Strobel.......

Atheism has nothing to stand on.  It relies solely on BLIND faith!

Again with your strawman. In this post I'll try again to explain why we need to keep descriptors of belief and knowledge separate and why your conflating the two is dishonest.

As mentioned I don't believe gods exist hence I'm an atheist, but I can't know that an untestable construct is 100% fictitious so I'm also agnostic. That's two descriptors stating my positions on both belief and knowledge with respect to gods. We probably share that same pair of descriptors with respect to most things that most likely don't exist including thousands of other gods.

I'll use Jesus, one of your favourite subjects, as an example of how my position changed with respect to belief and knowledge. When considering the existence of just the human Jesus and ignoring the supernatural tales attributed to him, at one point I would have stated that I believed the man existed but that I didn't know for sure that was the case. However, at that time I wasn't aware of the lack of academic rigor in most of the work done on the historicity of Jesus. Most of the original authors on the subject start with the conclusion that he was a real person and also a supernatural being. It's like pronouncing that the butler did it and then only looking for evidence tying the butler to the crime. 

More recently guys like Crossan, Ehrman and Carrier (and others) have approached the subject like true historians using academically sound methods. After reading some of their works and listening to many of their talks and debates it seems there is little to no evidence to suggest that Jesus was a real person. In fact, there is some, but not conclusive, evidence to support the theory that Jesus was originally conceived as a celestial being and then euhemerized or historicized over time. My position now is that I do not believe that Jesus was one real human, but also that I cannot know for sure.  Again, the separation of belief and knowledge are important.

Conflating the two descriptors is a dishonest attempt to paint all atheists as arrogant, anti-theists when, like me, the vast majority simply report both a lack of belief and a lack of certainty. This strawman you repeat was created by religious communities for effect because treating the subject honestly and intelligently doesn't make for a sexy sermon on why non-believers are arrogant and stupid. Unfortunately, this fallacy really only fools the intellectually lazy.

[Guest]

15 hours ago, betsy said:

Which is why atheism is an irrational position, since it directly flies against CUMULATIVE EVIDENCES.

Cumulative evidences are CORROBORATING evidences - evidences that stack up, lending support to the possibility of God's existence!  

From the observed claims by science (which they say support or compatible with Theistic Evolution)........ to the complexities and finely-tuned universe..........

.......and to MILLIONS OF TESTIMONIES who claim Godly experience(s)  not only from believers, but from atheists/agnostics who've been transformed, and/or, convinced to become believers!  Some of these atheists not only became believers, but they'd also became prominent apologists!  The current most prominent would include Francis Collins, William lane Craig (remember him?  the one who knocked down Richard Dawkins? ), Lee Strobel.......

Now let's talk about how evidence works and why you aren't actually accumulating any.

The religious start with the conclusion that their chosen god exists and then label correlations to the real world as evidence and simultaneously ignore or elaborately explain away discrepancies. Fortunately, this is not how logic works. Just like we shouldn't start with the conclusion that the butler did it before we begin a murder investigation it is irrational to start with the assumption that gods exist.

I'll give you an example of your error, but using mythology you are not already attached to. Unlike Jesus there is actual contemporaneous evidence to suggest that the Islamic prophet Muhammad was a real person. It is quite clear there was a real Muhammad. However, the evidence that supports his existence does not go on to lend any credence to many of the tales attributed to him or to the Quran itself. The fact that his existence can be proven doesn't lend any truth to the text about him flying off to heaven on a winged horse for instance. Just like some cherry picked text in Genesis correlating to cherry picked aspects of Evolution do not lend any truth to the bible or the supernatural.

In our mountains of knowledge about how evolution works or how our universe works, there is nothing to even remotely suggest that anything supernatural is involved. So correlating bits of scripture to cherry picked bits of scientific knowledge doesn't create evidence for the existence of the supernatural. In fact, tacking on supernatural notions to our existing scientific knowledge does not answer any questions it makes the explanations less likely.

As for your millions of testimonies statement, there are more plausible natural explanations for the way people feel than inventing supernatural ones. Derren Brown, an atheist, along with many others use simple tricks to make people feel like they have had "godly experiences" all the time. After going through these tricks the people see, feel and walk better despite nothing religious being involved. It's worth watching Derren's  latest special on Netflix. Attributing experiences we don't understand to gods instead of the natural way our brains work would be a huge stretch, unless of course, you already took the irrational step of believing in magic beings on faith.

[betsy]

7 hours ago, Slick said:

Again with your strawman. In this post I'll try again to explain why we need to keep descriptors of belief and knowledge separate and why your conflating the two is dishonest.

As mentioned I don't believe gods exist hence I'm an atheist, but I can't know that an untestable construct is 100% fictitious so I'm also agnostic. That's two descriptors stating my positions on both belief and knowledge with respect to gods. We probably share that same pair of descriptors with respect to most things that most likely don't exist including thousands of other gods.

I'll use Jesus, one of your favourite subjects, as an example of how my position changed with respect to belief and knowledge. When considering the existence of just the human Jesus and ignoring the supernatural tales attributed to him, at one point I would have stated that I believed the man existed but that I didn't know for sure that was the case. However, at that time I wasn't aware of the lack of academic rigor in most of the work done on the historicity of Jesus. Most of the original authors on the subject start with the conclusion that he was a real person and also a supernatural being. It's like pronouncing that the butler did it and then only looking for evidence tying the butler to the crime. 

More recently guys like Crossan, Ehrman and Carrier (and others) have approached the subject like true historians using academically sound methods. After reading some of their works and listening to many of their talks and debates it seems there is little to no evidence to suggest that Jesus was a real person. In fact, there is some, but not conclusive, evidence to support the theory that Jesus was originally conceived as a celestial being and then euhemerized or historicized over time. My position now is that I do not believe that Jesus was one real human, but also that I cannot know for sure.  Again, the separation of belief and knowledge are important.

 

The fact that you feel you have to include that red part, is the evidence you are agnostic!  You aren't sure.  Obviously, you find it important to reiterate that.

Well....you're on the same boat with Richard Dawkins.

 

 

Quote

Conflating the two descriptors is a dishonest attempt to paint all atheists as arrogant, anti-theists when, like me, the vast majority simply report both a lack of belief and a lack of certainty.

I won't call you dishonest.  I think you simply bought into these atheist-agnostic combo which new atheists conveniently use, to wiggle out of being called irrational!

They know, that being an atheist is an irrational position.  

Even Dawkins!    Lol.  He cannot trumpet atheism anymore as the "voice of reason," can he? 

 

 

Quote

 

Richard Dawkins: I can't be sure God does not exist

He told the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, that he preferred to call himself an agnostic rather than an atheist.

 

There was surprise when Prof Dawkins acknowledged that he was less than 100 per cent certain of his conviction that there is no creator.

The philosopher Sir Anthony Kenny, who chaired the discussion, interjected: “Why don’t you call yourself an agnostic?”

Prof Dawkins answered that he did.

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9102740/Richard-Dawkins-I-cant-be-sure-God-does-not-exist.html

 

And I think you simply cannot grasp why that  combo is absurd. 

Unlike you however, Richard Dawkins has books to market - which are written for atheists -  so, he flip-flops.

 

 

 

 

Quote

This strawman you repeat was created by religious communities for effect because treating the subject honestly and intelligently doesn't make for a sexy sermon on why non-believers are arrogant and stupid.

I don't need that so-called strawman to show New Atheists are arrogant and stupid.   New Atheists show it themselves.

  Why do you think we've got that other thread started - the one that stemmed from your status update?  

 

 

 

Edited August 2, 2018 by betsy

[betsy]

6 hours ago, Slick said:

Now let's talk about how evidence works and why you aren't actually accumulating any.

The religious start with the conclusion that their chosen god exists and then label correlations to the real world as evidence and simultaneously ignore or elaborately explain away discrepancies. Fortunately, this is not how logic works. Just like we shouldn't start with the conclusion that the butler did it before we begin a murder investigation it is irrational to start with the assumption that gods exist.

I'll give you an example of your error, but using mythology you are not already attached to. Unlike Jesus there is actual contemporaneous evidence to suggest that the Islamic prophet Muhammad was a real person. It is quite clear there was a real Muhammad. However, the evidence that supports his existence does not go on to lend any credence to many of the tales attributed to him or to the Quran itself. The fact that his existence can be proven doesn't lend any truth to the text about him flying off to heaven on a winged horse for instance. Just like some cherry picked text in Genesis correlating to cherry picked aspects of Evolution do not lend any truth to the bible or the supernatural.

In our mountains of knowledge about how evolution works or how our universe works, there is nothing to even remotely suggest that anything supernatural is involved. So correlating bits of scripture to cherry picked bits of scientific knowledge doesn't create evidence for the existence of the supernatural. In fact, tacking on supernatural notions to our existing scientific knowledge does not answer any questions it makes the explanations less likely.

As for your millions of testimonies statement, there are more plausible natural explanations for the way people feel than inventing supernatural ones. Derren Brown, an atheist, along with many others use simple tricks to make people feel like they have had "godly experiences" all the time. After going through these tricks the people see, feel and walk better despite nothing religious being involved. It's worth watching Derren's  latest special on Netflix. Attributing experiences we don't understand to gods instead of the natural way our brains work would be a huge stretch, unless of course, you already took the irrational step of believing in magic beings on faith.

I've done all the talking about evidences!   REVIEW them, if you want. 

I'm not going to convince you to accept them.  I'm simply showing atheism is an irrational position - and you're helping me with it.

Edited August 2, 2018 by betsy

[Guest]

6 hours ago, betsy said:

I've done all the talking about evidences!   REVIEW them, if you want. 

I've tried to help you understand that what you are presenting is not evidence for what you are claiming. Is your goal to use logic and evidence to support your belief system or just act as an infomercial?  Considering these are your beliefs I would think you would want to seek actual truth and would thus want to reexamine the fallacies and faulty logic you've been presenting.

Quote

I'm not going to convince you to accept them.  I'm simply showing atheism is an irrational position - and you're helping me with it.

You and your preacher video, claim that it is irrational and arrogant to be a Gnostic Atheist; which, is the claim that one knows that gods do not exist because one cannot know everything. I agree that we cannot be 100% certain about the existence of any untestable construct like gods, the supernatural, the existence of actual wizards, etc.

You then mock anyone that takes the academically honest position of being an Agnostic Atheist (the position of the vast majority of atheists) for not being 100% certain. 

Yet at the same time you take pride in being a Gnostic Theist, claiming to be absolutely certain because you have faith that your god absolutely exists. This is, of course. an irrational position for the same reason that you cited for it being arrogant and irrational to be a Gnostic Atheist. If this is your belief system, why would you want to play this childish and delusional game with logic?

Using logic to label the same position you are taking as irrational while simultaneously mocking those who are logical does not add credibility to your position; it simply makes you look ignorant or willfully dishonest. If it is a requirement of your belief system to claim to know that your god absolutely exists, then by all means take that position. However, if that truly is your position then it's time to stop throwing rocks in your glass house.

[Goddess]

Mocking atheists' lack of belief in any god doesn't hurt our feelings.  It doesn't damage our trust in reason, science or critical thinking.

Also, we will not kill you for it.

[DogOnPorch]

41 minutes ago, Goddess said:

 

Also, we will not kill you for it.

 

You can not kill a man just because he gave you a Datsun. This is America...you have to have permission first! That is democracy. 

 

[betsy]

17 hours ago, Slick said:

I've tried to help you understand that what you are presenting is not evidence for what you are claiming. Is your goal to use logic and evidence to support your belief system or just act as an infomercial?  Considering these are your beliefs I would think you would want to seek actual truth and would thus want to reexamine the fallacies and faulty logic you've been presenting.

You and your preacher video, claim that it is irrational and arrogant to be a Gnostic Atheist; which, is the claim that one knows that gods do not exist because one cannot know everything. I agree that we cannot be 100% certain about the existence of any untestable construct like gods, the supernatural, the existence of actual wizards, etc.

You then mock anyone that takes the academically honest position of being an Agnostic Atheist (the position of the vast majority of atheists) for not being 100% certain. 

Yet at the same time you take pride in being a Gnostic Theist, claiming to be absolutely certain because you have faith that your god absolutely exists. This is, of course. an irrational position for the same reason that you cited for it being arrogant and irrational to be a Gnostic Atheist. If this is your belief system, why would you want to play this childish and delusional game with logic?

Using logic to label the same position you are taking as irrational while simultaneously mocking those who are logical does not add credibility to your position; it simply makes you look ignorant or willfully dishonest. If it is a requirement of your belief system to claim to know that your god absolutely exists, then by all means take that position. However, if that truly is your position then it's time to stop throwing rocks in your glass house.

Lol!  Gnostic theist?   Hahahaha

It's your so-called "logic," that's faulty!  :shrug: 

What more can i say?

[Guest]

5 hours ago, betsy said:

Lol!  Gnostic theist?   Hahahaha

It's your so-called "logic," that's faulty!  :shrug: 

What more can i say?

You have stated that you are a theist, do you also claim to know your god exists? If so then you are a gnostic theist; which, is the same arrogant and irrational position you ridicule gnostic atheists for taking. 

[betsy]

17 hours ago, Slick said:

You have stated that you are a theist, do you also claim to know your god exists? If so then you are a gnostic theist; which, is the same arrogant and irrational position you ridicule gnostic atheists for taking. 

 

   By your own statement there,  there shouldn't be any plain theists  - or atheists - at all!  That is, if we base our knowledge by your own "standard."    Lol!    Why?  Did anyone show any undeniable  scientific PROOF that God exists to base that so-called "knowledge?"

 

You convolute your own thinking into cockamamie nonsense.  Gnostic-theist, my foot.  What a load of rubbish!  

 

Lol!   Why would anyone claim to be in a definitive stance if they're skeptic about it in any way?

Never mind science!  The only reason I use science in forums is because I'm dealing with non-believers who claim to be relying on science!  I'm simply meeting you on your own ground - showing you atheism is  irrational - by using your own science! 

 

I don't need any scientific proof!   I don't need science to tell me. 

 

I am a theist!   I believe and say  God exists............ BECAUSE............ I KNOW IT!

 

Edited August 4, 2018 by betsy

[betsy]

17 hours ago, Slick said:

You have stated that you are a theist, do you also claim to know your god exists? If so then you are a gnostic theist; which, is the same arrogant and irrational position you ridicule gnostic atheists for taking. 

 

You keep using "gnostic" as the term......... do you know GNOSTICISM refers to various religious ideas and systems, that originated from Jewish-Christians?

 

Quote

 

These systems believed that the material world is created by an emanation of the highest God, trapping the divine spark within the human body. This divine spark could be liberated by gnosis. Some of the core teachings include the following:

1. All matter is evil, and the non-material, spirit-realm is good.
2. There is an unknowable God, who gave rise to many lesser spirit beings called Aeons.
3. One evil, lower spirit being is the creator who made the universe.
4. Gnosticism does not deal with "sin", only ignorance.
5. To achieve salvation, one needs to get in touch with secret knowledge.

The Gnostic ideas and systems flourished in the Mediterranean world in the second century AD, in conjunction with and influenced by the early Christian movements and Middle Platonism. After the second century, a decline set in, but Gnosticism persisted throughout the centuries as an undercurrent of western culture, remanifesting with the Renaissance as Western esotericism, taking prominence with modern spirituality. In the Persian Empire, Gnosticism spread as far as China with Manicheism, while Mandaeism is still alive in Iraq.

A major question in scholarly research is the qualification of Gnosticism, based on the study of its texts, as either an interreligious phenomenon or as an independent religion.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism

 

 

You must mean,  AGNOSTIC-ATHEISM. 

 

Quote

Agnostic atheism is a philosophical position that encompasses both atheism and agnosticism. Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity and agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism

 

Edited August 4, 2018 by betsy

[GostHacked]

On 7/24/2018 at 5:36 AM, betsy said:

 

Atheism is the opposite of theism.   Yes, it's about belief!   They have OPPOSING BELIEFS!

The amount of threads you start on these topics is starting to feel like spam!

[betsy]

14 hours ago, GostHacked said:

The amount of threads you start on these topics is starting to feel like spam!

....and your responses  to my threads make you seem like a.......troll.

If my threads bother you, don't enter them!   In fact, I'll thank you for it.   

As simple as that! 

Edited August 8, 2018 by betsy

[GostHacked]

10 hours ago, betsy said:

....and your responses  to my threads make you seem like a.......troll.

If my threads bother you, don't enter them!   In fact, I'll thank you for it.   

As simple as that! 

Right, right carry on with your,...... whatever this is.  The other key is 72 pt crazy ass colourful font to get your point across when you are close to defeat.

[betsy]

14 hours ago, GostHacked said:

Right, right carry on with your,...... whatever this is.  The other key is 72 pt crazy ass colourful font to get your point across when you are close to defeat.

Just gave your rationale as an example at the other thread.   Used 72 pt crazy ass colourful font on you.  Threw in a smiley too, as a bonus.

 

For those who wanna see:

 

 

Voila!   See how irrational atheists are? You make it so easy for me to prove it. 

Edited August 9, 2018 by betsy

[GostHacked]

6 hours ago, betsy said:

Just gave your rationale as an example at the other thread.   Used 72 pt crazy ass colourful font on you.  Threw in a smiley too, as a bonus.

 

For those who wanna see:

 

 

Voila!   See how irrational atheists are? You make it so easy for me to prove it. 

Interesting that you need to go to another thread about Canada and Saudi Arabia to prove your 'point' on atheism.  Is that how it works? I am confused. Nothing I see in that post is about atheists.