You made my fricken point. I try to spoon feed it to you and Stu, but perhaps you would like to read what I wrote and compare that to your quote. I said one reasonable conclusion is that there could be a Creator and that another conclusion is that the universe just is. perhaps you would like to review your quote again and say yes Jem you have been on the side of science and Stu has been troll.
....and it was explained to you more than a few times, that it is not one reasonable conclusion as itâs a redundant thing to say. To conclude there could be anything â¦. is simply a pointless thing to conclude. Itâs a conclusion which simply puts your Creator along with every and all other imaginary concepts - including flying pigs. But it appears you are perfectly content to be left dumbfounded by that one unreasonable conclusion there could be a Creator. Just like there could be flying pigs, or there could be Gilbert. That way your non- argument allows for flying pigs and Gilbert too. So like Optional777 you are the ones with this could be imaginary God/Creator friend . It's perfectly clear the obvious question about mental illness this thread was started for is right there in you two. Trying to defend that - invisible God/Creator friend psychosis with non-arguments, being happy to pretend or fool yourself they actually mean something, and Optional with all his usual sneering fantasies projected onto anyone who dares have differing opinions . Whilst both of you would argue in the same futile way your friend is the true one , not one bit bothered how nonsensical and childish that is. But in the end you're both only showing the age old problem of trying to rationalize an invisible friend into adulthood onto others who don't feel that gullible and have grown up . At least that far. For the most part insult and non-argument will be the only method of choice used and inevitably the options only available to those who have ever tried to do it.
stu, self appointed master of reality... <img src=http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/attachment.php?s=&postid=2386854> LOL!!!
Bullshit. Don't try to spin it when you find yourself in it. Oh, and don't ever lose that sense of humor:
Only having read through the first few pages of this thread, I find it fascinating that this argument still causes so much controversy. Just to get this out of the way: I am agnostic and a former scientist/engineer so you can take what I say with that in mind. Fact 1: The bible was written by people. It is a text, specifically, a text within a context. That context being a time where most people were highly uneducated, superstitious, and illiterate. Fact 2: Several books originally in the bible were purposely omitted from the bible during the course of history. The reasons for omission are many, largely socio-political. Judging these two facts, any logical person will conclude that the bible, like any history book, was written by a select number of people with intentions and agendas that were unknown to us. Because if this, the bible is in no way is an accurate historical accounting, it is a text - for all we know it could have been a comedy writing in its original form. The idea that people today are still latching on to the creation story told in the bible is utterly ignorant. All the facts point otherwise - the world was not created in 7 days and dinosaurs did not live alongside of man. If you truly believe that man and dinosaurs coexisted then you have a mental disorder. Second, Atheism, while possibly narrow in its lack of imagination, has much stronger evidence going for it than does theism. "Faith" alone does not make something real, or produce, nor has it ever produced, evidence in any form. On the contrary, the evidence for atheism is everywhere. Naturalist facts abound - the biological process of life and death IMO is all the evidence necessary. Also, most all supernatural events have logical explanations. To all you theists I ask this: why does atheism cause you discomfort? Why the need to change a person's harmless belief system? It makes no sense to me why your side of the argument, lacking any specific proof other than faith and a 3000-4000 year old text, chooses to argue what is generally an evidence lacking argument. Ask yourself why you have a desire to defend/promote your faith? If it really is that personal, then consider this - maybe that's all it was meant to be - a personal choice that has no external ramifications about the universe, evolution, etc... Mike
Why do the atheists spend so much time trying to make the theist wrong? They have never been successful in changing the true believer, just as the theist is never successful in changing the true atheist believer. If it really is the case that atheism is the product of reason, and if it really true that theism is the product of the non rational aspect of human existence (yes, man is not 100% reason) then why do the so called reasonable ones get hostile, petty, vindictive, attacking, intolerant, persecution drive, self righteous, and many other purely emotionally reactive responses? Why do the atheist have this need to prove the theist wrong? Since when is it not sufficient to simply believe and be content with what you think is right? Could it be that they need to reinforce their own atheist thinking because they actually have doubts about the atheistic religion? When an atheist decides to change their faith, and convert to theism, do the atheists put up a major battle to change the mind of the person who changed their mind? An when the atheist has converted, does the atheistic community wish him well and accept his decision with love and acceptance, or do they try to smear the former atheist and denounce the former atheist so that other atheists are not swayed in any way by the convert's decision? Could it be because they feel like a minority group and need to act out like other minority groups do who fear for their survival and continued identity? Why do they waste time in debates they know they can't actually win, because the debates don't offer any prize for the winner? Is their an arbiter who has no dog in the fight of atheism vs. theism who can evenly and in a balance manner speak of a winner of such a debate? Why do you focus your comments on the Bible or other Christian scripture, as the eastern religions take a very different view of God and religion? Could it be that the ego structure of the atheist is actually much more fragile than they come across, that the bluff and bluster exists to buttress a deeper uncertainty about life? Could it be because many of the atheists were once theists, truly sincere believers in God, and were heartbroken when they came to conclusion that God did not exist not only for them...but for everyone else? Is it reasonable to conclude that many atheists suffered some trauma because of the abuse by some religious training and/or father figure? Do the atheist carry resentments due to the abuse to them as children by the indoctrination process and other abuses by the religious organizations and leaders? Like the bitter men or women, who having had their heart broken by a member of the opposite sex, remain with a damaged psyche and broken heart, and have a compulsion to strike out at when they see a happy couple? Think deeper about this Mike805, I think you will see some great irrationality in play from the atheists in their pursuit of converting theists away from their belief system... That the theists present a fair amount of irrational behavior is not so unusual, they are after all human, but when they preach rational thinking...and their actions are irrational...they appear very much like Christians who preach their moral superiority, and are then seen sinning like a monkey. Is there not an equal amount of hypocrisy in this respect by the atheist to many of the in name only Christians who ignore the teachings of the very books they hold up as true and needing to be followed?
Ok - you need to space your ideas out a bit, I can't get too all the stuff you wrote in one post. Well, it is my opinion that extreme religion is the cause of many of society's ills. This may be reaching, but, the Atheist may want to reveal to the believer that the believer's belief system, when kept unchecked, leads to dysfunction and alienation. No one wants to have a set of beliefs forced upon them, however, in certain parts of the country, theists preach that non-believers are sinners in the eyes of god. This is an insidious statement that causes rifts and sometimes hatred in communities. They have never been successful in changing the true believer, just as the theist is never successful in changing the truth atheist believer. Well, I can't argue that. Its a personal choice. Many people, when their personal belief systems are challenged, get defensive and/or aggressive. Ego has a lot to do with it. I think men, in general, possess a lower EQ and do not have the ability to easily change an embedded belief system, hence, the primary response is attack first, understand later (if ever). Why do you focus your comments on the Bible or other Christian scripture, as the eastern religions take a very different view of God and religion? My understanding of eastern religions is not as developed, hence, I try not to talk about what I don't have firsthand experience with. Is it reasonable to conclude that many atheists suffered some trauma because of the abuse by some religious training and/or father figure? Maybe. I think this may be off topic though, the reasons behind which someone becomes religious or not has more to do with community/parents than anything else. I think we ought to stick to evidence versus belief system here. Is there not an equal amount of hypocrisy in this respect by the atheist to many of the in name only Christians who ignore the teachings of the very books they hold up as true and needing to be followed? Yes. Agreed, but there is a difference between using facts to support ones hypocrisy versus using faith.