-->
@secularmerlin
Then don't fucking join a religion or worship gods. Problem solved, move on.
Delusion In Most Atheists?
Posts
Total:
506
-->
@secularmerlin
Oh, that's what it was. You want to know as many factoids as possible, right?
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
I'm not sure what you mean. You are merely incorrect that I assume anyone is a liar or has any mental aberration. This does not present me with any problem that needs fixing and I'm not sure how joining or failing to join any religious group would necessarily solve any problems for me.
-->
@Plisken
As many true things and just as important as few false things as possible.
-->
@secularmerlin
I have no evidence for or against any god(s) in the same way I have no evidence for it against any ghosts or Bigfoot or flying teapots.
Yet you don't spend hours on the ghost website debating ghost lovers.
My only claim is that we do not have any sufficient evidence and in the absence of evidence the reasonable thing to do is to withhold belief.
You've told me your belief a thousand times. I just told you to stop telling us you're going to "withhold" your belief and you repeat the same thing again. No one cares what you withhold Sec.
I'm talking with theists on the religion board because I'm a theist.You are welcome to your beliefs but if you don't care about convincing people of them what are you doing on a debate sight?
You're here to tell us how you're going to withhold your belief if we don't pass your test. You think your belief is what we crave. That is why you, an anti-theist, comes to a religion board to repeat over and over that you're "afraid" you're going to have to "withhold" your belief.
If theist wanted your belief as badly as you imagine, we would have found you as you were being brainwashed on that Dawkins website in 2004.
Give it a rest. Sorry, but that ridiculously overblown idea you have of yourself and your thinking prowess is just that. Overblown.
-->
@ethang5
If theist wanted your belief as badly as you imagine, we would have found you as you were being brainwashed on that Dawkins website in 2004.
In 2004 I was a theist and would continue to be one for at least another half a decade and I knew precious little about Richard Dawkins. (Not that it matters but I am a far bigger advocate of Mat Dilihunty's philosophy).
I'm talking with theists on the religion board because I'm a theist.
So you are here to experience an echo chamber in which the only participants already agree? That isn't very realistic.
In 2004 I was a theist and would continue to be one for at least another half a decade and I knew precious little about Richard Dawkins.
I'm not omniscient homer, it was rhetorical.
(Not that it matters but I am a far bigger advocate of Mat Dilihunty's philosophy).
No one cares Sec.
I'm talking with theists on the religion board because I'm a theist.
So you are here to experience an echo chamber in which the only participants already agree?
No, that is only how a militant anti-theist would spin it.
That isn't very realistic
I'll say. Anti-theist aren't known for their realistic outlook. The delusion is strong with this one.
-->
@ethang5
Anti-theist aren't known for their realistic outlook.
That's like saying "donuts lovers aren't known for the love of sugar." The entire reason atheists are atheists is BECAUSE of a realistic outlook. A realistic outlook requires evidence and proof. Theism presents no evidence nor proof, therefore it is literally the definition of unrealistic. What are you on dude?
-->
@BrutalTruth
You seem to be wholly unaware that what goes on between your ears is not reality.
All you've done is to tell me what you personally think of your own position. No surprise that you have a ridiculously self serving opinion of your beliefs.
What are you on dude?
Conservatives tend not to need things to alter their sobriety.
Recreational drugs are a leftist/liberal thing.
-->
@BrutalTruth
What reason do you have to disbelieve it?
Your claims are not evidently true.
To whom and why not?
To anyone,
So....there are no Theists that exist?
because you have presented no valid evidence to support your claims, hence my use of the words "not evidently true."
What claims do you want evidence for? you didn't even ask you went straight to "not evidently true", geeze. If you have a question or want further explaining you have to let me know, don't just jump to the ol "you have no evidence" baloney. We have to work that out. As of yet, I'm simply trying to get you to consider spirituality as a source, I'm willing to expand of that and explain why you should consider it.
what have I claimed?
That the Christian god exists.
Wrong sir, show me where I claimed that. Actually, what I did claim in this very thread was that I could argue for the Creator without the Bible. Correct? did I not say that? I'm not even claiming the Christian God does NOT exist, I have yet to claim either one. Are you always in such a rush to blow people off? settle down and we can break down whatever you want. But first give me a chance to argue my points before you go assuming things. Stay with what I actually write and this will be much easier.
what is evidently true to you that is outside the parameters of spirituality?
Anything that has been proven to be true. For example, I have a penis.
Okay, now that we are confident you have a penis what exact problem do you have in accepting or considering you are conscious soul that is using a physical body? after all, just like you have a penis, you are also a soul that is having an experience through a material body. Perhaps take a peek at my topic "who is the observer" and see if you have any objections throughout that thread.
how many claims does it take you to realize there may be something to consider?
No one is claiming that there is nothing to consider. It has been considered, and found to not be evidently true.
And why not? you keep saying "evidently" but give me an example why spirituality is not evidently true.
Evident-
"plain or obvious; clearly seen or understood."
This is most certainly compatible with spirituality. What is the problem? wouldn't what is "evident" involve perceptions as well? for many people including myself believe Theism and spirituality to be evidently true. Perhaps ask why??
So none of what you have accepted has come through a source of written material?
I didn't say that. Read what I said again.
You wrote "Written words prove nothing but that words have been written." It is what the words imply that can hold proof, and nothing within these texts proves anything."
So we're back to the same problem you said you wouldn't do, you won't consider sources that correlate with the nature of spirituality. If you were to CONSIDER it like you said you would then we could move forward, or at least ask me questions why you should consider religious or spiritual sources for insights and knowledge about God.
at what point do you ever consider claims as something that reflects reality and something you have accepted?
When said claims are proven true.
Give me an example besides your penis. Where do you get your information that something is proven?
where do you get your information from?
The empirical observation and experience of reality.
Don't be a wise ass, where do you get your information from that something is proven besides what you experience directly through your physical perceptions. Did you not know that the soul nature is not perceived through only the physical body but can be experienced at much higher conscious levels than the mind and what you perceive through your physical senses? you have layers that cover the soul in which the physical being the outermost part/layer. You can perceive through your spirit layers or what are known as subtle bodies.
-->
@ethang5
All you've done is to tell me what you personally think of your own position.
Oh, I see the problem. You don't recognize factual statements when you see them. Interesting. Why are you here again?
Conservatives tend not to need things to alter their sobriety.Recreational drugs are a leftist/liberal thing.
lol, and he calls ME unrealistic. Walk outside and get a clue.
-->
@BrutalTruth
Your reasoned and logical argument has convinced me.
Bye.
-->
@EtrnlVw
So....there are no Theists that exist?
Why are you asking me that? I said your claims aren't evidently true to anyone. Of course that applies to theists. It applies to them first and foremost, since they don't require anything to be evident in order to believe it.
What claims do you want evidence for?
I wasn't aware this needed spelling out, but here we go: Any and all claims anyone in the history of the universe ever has, is, or will make, needs evidence and/or proof in order to be justifiably believed as true.
Wrong sir, show me where I claimed that.
BTW, I don't argue for any religious God in particular, I argue for the Creator period.
Alright fine, you claimed that the "creator" exists. Whatever that ominous piece of not-evidently-true fiction means.
Okay, now that we are confident you have a penis what exact problem do you have in accepting or considering you are conscious soul that is using a physical body?
The same problem I have with accepting that the world is an invisible bucket of ketchup and we're all just floating potatoes: It's not evidently true.
you are also a soul that is having an experience through a material body.
Prove it.
And why not? you keep saying "evidently" but give me an example why spirituality is not evidently true.
Because it has yet to be evidenced, which is where the word "evident" comes from.
So we're back to the same problem you said you wouldn't do, you won't consider sources that correlate with the nature of spirituality. If you were to CONSIDER it like you said you would then we could move forward, or at least ask me questions why you should consider religious or spiritual sources for insights and knowledge about God.
Bro, I've spent the better part of two decades considering it. Who are you to tell me what I have and haven't considered?
Where do you get your information that something is proven?
The empirical observation and experience of reality.
Don't be a wise ass, where do you get your information from that something is proven besides what you experience directly through your physical perceptions.
There is no other place from which a human can gain knowledge.
-->
@BrutalTruth
Bro, I've spent the better part of two decades considering it. Who are you to tell me what I have and haven't considered?
Have you?
The empirical observation and experience of reality.
Bc then you would know the answer to this is a little weirder than straight forward. I wonder if you have spent most of your time considering monotheistic religions and the like. There are many more spiritual platforms. Where you demand proof, you won't get it due to the proof only being in the form of experiences and observations of a specific observer (weak evidence). But if you demand evidence, there is a lot of evidence to suggest one of these spiritual platforms could be right. I think at the very least, being agnostic atheist spiritual is most logical presently.
-->
@Outplayz
Why? Produce a god who wasn't created by man.being agnostic atheist spiritual is most logical presently.
-->
@disgusted
Spiritual doesn't mean god. By spiritual i could mean two things. 1) a reality / phenomena we aren't aware of; 2) Same thing as 1 with addition to this reality / phenomena having intelligent / sentient entities in it. Aliens would be spiritual by my definition just as much as a god would be spiritual. If i say there is a spiritual reality that interacts with this reality and is why we have spiritual experiences i am referring to case 2. But in no way am i saying it is only a god that can interact with this reality in an unseen way. It could be god, gods or just aliens. It's unknown. I think it's arrogant to say nothing of either case 1 or 2 for sure doesn't exist. I would say there is enough evidence to at the very least suspect that there is a spiritual reality.
Plus, just bc spirit entities, more on the lines of what you are saying, are man made doesn't mean they don't exist. We've thought of many things that have later turned out to be reality. Humans are capable of this foresight. But to be clear that's why i say agnostic atheist would be logical too. The atheist in that would mean, to me at least, that one could also be confident none of the man made religions have it right and/or there isn't one religion that has it all right.
-->
@BrutalTruth
but you certainly appear to have grievances against this non-existent Being. Go figure?Go figure? I guess you don't find grievance with someone who orders infanticide, genocide, rape, murder and a plethora of other atrocities? Who is the morally skewed person now?
A non-existent being is not a someone. How is it not skewed to charge to a non-existent being a crime??? Who exactly are you charging?
A skeptic, generally speaking, will always find another reason to doubt.A skeptic is intelligent enough to question claims of truth, instead of believing in fairy tales.
The skeptic makes assertions about things he is ignorant of.
I can only present a reasonable defense and tear away at inconsistency, as you do with me.I'm still waiting for this "reasonable defense."
No matter how reasonable it is you would still charge it as unreasonable. How reasonable is that?
-->
@PGA2.0
Translation: I can't so I will run away.No matter how reasonable it is you would still charge it as unreasonable. How reasonable is that?
-->
@disgusted
No matter how reasonable it is you would still charge it as unreasonable. How reasonable is that?Translation: I can't so I will run away.
As usual, you have no valid contribution. IMO, you just harrass others because you are so emotional and angry.
-->
@disgusted
Translation: responding to your posts is a waste of my time.
-->
@PGA2.0
Buahahahaha, you are hilarious. Your substandard intellect must account for your astoundingly poor understanding of my emotions, that too is hilarious.
Just run away as usual little thing. LOL
-->
@PGA2.0
The numpty considers this a valid contribution, oh your god, how pathetic.
No matter how reasonable it is you would still charge it as unreasonable. How reasonable is that?
It's called running away deary.
-->
@PGA2.0
because you are so emotional and angry.
Change the record.
This is the response atheist and others get when theist cannot respond to criticism of their scriptures. Everyone else but themselves is "angry and emotional". Theist need to accept that these scriptures are flawed and do not stand up to scrutiny nor criticism
-->
@Stephen
Hey shemp,
If you start cursing, swearing, insulting people, typing in all caps and bold, people are going to think you are angry and emotional. What else can they think? Someone just asks you a question and you go postal, repeating posts over and over and typing in all caps.
Your posts are angry and emotional, full of insults, exclamation marks, and all caps.
-->
@disgusted
The numpty considers this a valid contribution, oh your god, how pathetic.No matter how reasonable it is you would still charge it as unreasonable. How reasonable is that?It's called running away deary.
More ad homs. I have no desire to subject myself to that? Please do not answer my posts. I'm not interested in these one-line quips that add no value to the subject matter.
-->
@Outplayz
Where you demand proof, you won't get it due to the proof only being in the form of experiences and observations of a specific observer (weak evidence). But if you demand evidence, there is a lot of evidence to suggest one of these spiritual platforms could be right. I think at the very least, being agnostic atheist spiritual is most logical presently.
A hole in a tree could be "suggestive evidence" of a giant(such as Sasquatch) sodomizing a tree. Or, it could be evidence that someone shot the tree with a cannon. Or it could be evidence that a laser was misfired and hit the tree.
Which one do we believe? And does it really matter? Because the reality of it could be that the tree was simply deformed, and so all those people who believed a giant buttfucked it, or a cannon shot it, or a laser misfired at it are superstitious fools.
As I've more than adequately proven here, "suggestive evidence" is no reason at all to believe something. Evidence is good for only one thing: Leading to proof. Without proof, belief cannot be justified.
-->
@BrutalTruth
Belief that The Ultimate Reality exists is certainly justified.
Belief that The Ultimate Reality doesn't exist cannot be justified.
Therefore, being on the fence about it cannot be an enlightened position.
-->
@Mopac
Nobody cares to hear your psychobabble anymore. Go away.
-->
@BrutalTruth
The Ultimate Reality exists.
Do you dispute this, or can you confess The Truth?
-->
@BrutalTruth
I am curious after reading your first debate. Does truth have a basis in reality to you?