Joshthefirst: smh. At least you cannot refute what he has said. Till today, I asked the troll to give me evidence of evolution. He has not.

Nor will I. Google is your friend, especially when the topic is a very well know scientific topic taught even in secondary schools.

@ deepsight,
what form would this creator of yours have?

Italo if you so believe atheists are lazy and foolish why not let them be? but till you tell yourself the truth belief in God is highly subjective and lacks zero objectivity. i believe in God because it makes me sleep better at night and I such i can't prove God to anybody. If you have any objective prove please bring it forward.

Deep Sight:

Gbam.

I Am surprised that you would say gbam to a post that is so blatantly laughable.
How can you support willful ignorance just because it supports you viewpoint.

To be honest, no intelligent and educated person should be debating the merits of evolutionary theory at this point in our history.
That time has passed.

For Trugunn to wax eloquently that everything remains the same over eons of time is so woefully ignorant, one wonders if he understands how the universe works at the most fundamental level.

Atheism is irrational, but it is just as irrational as theism or deism.

Agnosticism is a bit more rational since it is a half-way house, if that's what floats your boat.

Some of us have been on the various parts of the spectrum and yet choose to go with the irrational theism (or with some, atheism).

Everything appears irrational until rationalism finally finds an explanation for it.

InesQor: Atheism is irrational, but it is just as irrational as theism or deism.

Agnosticism is a bit more rational since it is a half-way house, if that's what floats your boat.

Some of us have been on the various parts of the spectrum and yet choose to go with the irrational theism (or with some, atheism).

Everything appears irrational until rationalism finally finds an explanation for it.

This is the foolishness that pisses me off

An atheist can be agnostic

People just make silly distinctions just to run away from the criticism of atheism. If agnosticism is rational, atheism should follow.


Gaddem....annoying

@Logicboy03:

And where did I say the definitions of the worldviews are exclusive?

Did you see the word spectrum that I used, or you were too much in a hurry to put your foot in your mouth?

There are agnostic atheists, agnostic theists, and there are even theists with agnostic or atheistic inclinations. It's not set in stone.

When I say agnosticism is rational, then definitely an agnostic atheist will have some rational viewpoints as well as the irrational bent that will follow his purely atheistic views.

Slow down man. Don't give yourself an aneurysm.

InesQor: @Logicboy03:

And where did I say the definitions of the worldviews are exclusive?

Did you see the word spectrum that I used, or you were too much in a hurry to put your foot in your mouth?


There are agnostic atheists, agnostic theists, and there are even theists with agnostic or atheistic inclinations. It's not set in stone.

When I say agnosticism is rational, then definitely an agnostic atheist will have some rational viewpoints as well as the irrational bent that will follow his purely atheistic views.

Slow down man. Don't give yourself an aneurysm.

A theist cant be an atheist....these are polar opposites
A theist cant be agnostic....a theist has already picked God

Atheism is only a disbelief. It doesnt say that god doesnt exist.


Your spectrum is crap. What authority does it have that i must accept it?



There is hardly a dividing line between an agnostic and atheist. An agnostic is an atheist

@Logicboy03

Guy, relax it's not my spectrum. It is commonly referred to, and has been peer-reviewed as Dawkin's spectrum of theistic probability.

1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung: "I do not believe, I know."
2. De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. "I don't know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."
3. Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."
4. Completely impartial. Exactly 50 per cent. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable."
5. Leaning towards Agnosticism. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. "I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical."
6. De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the as sumption that he is not there."
7. Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one."

In the spectrum above, stances 1 and 7 are the irrational ones and stance 4 is rational.

Though they are all non-theists, there IS a dividing line between agnostics, ignostics/igtheists, and atheists. Yet in some places they may overlap.

InesQor: @Logicboy03

Guy, relax it's not my spectrum. It is commonly referred to, and has been peer-reviewed as Dawkin's spectrum of theistic probability.

1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung: "I do not believe, I know."
2. De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. "I don't know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."
3. Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."
4. Completely impartial. Exactly 50 per cent. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable."
5. Leaning towards Agnosticism. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. "I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical."
6. De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the as sumption that he is not there."
7. Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one."

In the spectrum above, stances 1 and 7 are the irrational ones and stance 4 is rational.

What if I told you that stance 7 is not atheism?

What if I told you that agnostics dont base their stnce on percentages?


Why should your spectrum be taken seriously?

@Logicboy03:

My spectrum? Urgh. Guy did you read it at all?

You are free to say whatever you wish viz. stance 7 is not atheism or that FSM is the esoteric nickname of Cthulhu's cult god. When it is peer-reviewed like Dawkin's own, you can call on me. I deal with theological academic material not spurious conjectures.

InesQor: @Logicboy03:

My spectrum? Urgh. Guy did you read it at all?

You are free to say whatever you wish viz. stance 7 is not atheism or that FSM is the esoteric nickname of Cthulhu's cult. When it is peer-reviewed like Dawkin's own, you can call on me. I deal with religious academic material not spurious conjectures.

Peer reviewed? In which journal please? send me links

@Logicboy03:

And why should I do your homework for you?

InesQor: @Logicboy03:

And why should I do your homework for you?

My homework?

lolz....you made the claim...smh....burden of proof...typical

Now I'm confused...
What's the difference between an unbeliever and an atheist?

TroGunn: The question is, what do the facts show?

When you look at the universe, it overwhelmingly shouts design, laws, intelligence. Design, Law, Intelligence points to a living being. Simple.

All the non-god explanation of the origin of universe, origin of life and speciation are nothing more than fantastic, imaginative nonsense - not consistent with known facts.

The evidence consistently point to the origin of the universe requiring an Originator - it had a beginning, it's a marvel of order and precise laws. A Beginner and Law-giver seems the logical conclusion.

The evidence consistently point to origin of life requiring an intelligent Originator - even the most basic life form is a marvel of complexity and design. True, living things have basic building blocks, but combining these blocks in the right order by uncoordinated forces of "nature" to create a protein or a nucleic acid, not to mention a living self-replicating organism has severally been shown to be a mathematical impossibility. The fact that it's taking painstaking human effort, deep research into existing proteins, great intelligence and millions of dollars in precise labs and equipment in the attempts to only create synthetic proteins from amino acids tilts toward one sure conclusion - the vastly and insanely more complex living things around us were created by an Intelligent Being.

Speciation or origin of different species/life forms continue to befuddle those who assert evolution as the reason we have different species. Nothing is more factual than real fossils and they consistently show living things unchanged over time. They just don't evolve. Fishes stay like fishes, monkeys remain monkeys, birds remain birds. It's known that over 90% of fossils show unchanged organisms over time. The remaining <10% is inconclusive - likely extinct species. If life forms evolved, we'd see many intermediate life forms as fossils. But the fossil evidence points to one conclusion - variety of species started relatively abruptly (Cambrian Explosion) such that creation is the more logical explanation.

The reason for atheism is understandable - largely to blame are frankly stupid religious teachings/practices and the presence of evil/suffering. But atheism still is the much weaker, less logical, completely-opposed-to-observable-fact position, when compare to believing in Intelligent Creator. Definitely requires more blind faith to be an atheist than to believe in an Intelligent Creator.

And of all religious views/books, none comes close to the historically accurate records, scientifically sound views, extremely wise counsel found in the Bible - giving good reasons to believe it's from the universe's Intelligent Creator.

From which christian site did you get this post full of wishful fantasies and convoluted logic?

Evil Brain:

Okay, fine. I leave room for the possibility of God.

Except that by my estimation, the possibility of God is only as likely as the possibility of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. And it's less likely than the possibility of space aliens secretly living among us, and far less likely than Tupac being alive and hiding in Ajegunle. Are you happy now?

Have you finished doing the experiment yet? I'm still waiting.

According to you, it is possible God is real.

We are getting somewhere.

italo:

According to you, it is possible God is real.

We are getting somewhere.

Na so oh.

I'd say it has always been possible that God is real. The degree to which people accept this is what differs.

Even if we assume God is physical (say we temporarily accept that everything that exists is physical) it is still not enough to prove God exists or not. We occupy and know so so so little of this universe, so how can we hope to prove or disprove God's existence while we're in the self-same universe? In the end, everything is left to opinion and personal belief.

italo:

According to you, it is possible God is real.

We are getting somewhere.

Of course, same as the possibility of the toothfairy existing

GeneralShepherd: Italo if you so believe atheists are lazy and foolish why not let them be? but till you tell yourself the truth belief in God is highly subjective and lacks zero objectivity. i believe in God because it makes me sleep better at night and I such i can't prove God to anybody. If you have any objective prove please bring it forward.

I didnt say Atheists are lazy and foolish. You must not have read this thread properly.

This thread is about the irrationality of Atheism when Atheists claim that Theists are irrational for belief without empirical evidence - while Atheism's belief lacks empirical evidence. It has little to do with Theists.

Imagine I'm agnostic.

I ask: where is your evidence for your BELIEF that there is no God?

Logicboy03:



Of course, same as the possibility of the toothfairy existing

Keyword: possibility.

Do you also NOW believe God possibly exists?

italo:

I didnt say Atheists are lazy and foolish. You must not have read this thread properly.

This thread is about the irrationality of Atheism when Atheists claim that Theists are irrational for belief without empirical evidence - while Atheism's belief lacks empirical evidence. It has little to do with Theists.

Imagine I'm agnostic.

I ask: where is your evidence for your BELIEF that there is no God?

Atheism is not the belief that there is no God
It is the disbelief in God.
A lack of belief.


A disbelief is a lack of a belief not a belief in the opposite.

italo:

Keyword: possibility.

Do you also NOW believe God possibly exists?

Of course, God's existence is possible with impossible odds.

babestell: Italo you try. I never understand what the Atheist are talking about 100% of the time. Sometimes I get the impression that some of them don't either

Of course they dont. They only speculate.

This is getting interesting.

Logicboy03:



Of course, God's existence is possible with impossible odds.

so God's existence is possible, but you just don't believe in him? That's your definition of disbelief? This does not change the fact that you will stand before God in judgement and answer to your deeds. Do you believe standing before God in judgement is possible?

Deep Sight:
After so many years the discussion remains willfully misdirected. The question is the existence of A creator. By whatever misconceived name or rendered with whatever misconceived attributes. The philosophical necessity of a prime mover. That is the question.

As such, questions on this or that god are misfooted and meaningless. It beats me that Mazaje could fail to grasp this simple point for several years now.

The guy amazes me, to say the least. Same response to every question.

Q. Is Atheist North Korea better than Religious Nigeria to live in?

Mazaje: Which of the many gods?

Q. Is it rational to assert something without evidence?

Mazaje: Which of the many gods?

Q. Where do you live?

Mazaje: Which of ..........?

Does he read before posting at all?

Joshthefirst: so God's existence is possible, but you just don't believe in him? That's your definition of disbelief? This does not change the fact that you will stand before God in judgement and answer to your deeds. Do you believe standing before God in judgement is possible?

It is possible that our universe came from another universe. Many scientists are testing this hypothesis.


Does that mean that these scientists believe that our universe came from another universe? No...not until they prove it to be true.



It is possible that there is a celestial teapot flying around our galaxy....should we believe it?

Logicboy03:



It is possible that our universe came from another universe. Many scientists are testing this hypothesis.


Does that mean that these scientists believe that our universe came from another universe? No...not until they prove it to be true.

does this mean that the consequence of that possibility is overridden? God exists. You claim he is a possibility. We claim to really know him as he is. The fact that you think he is not proved(which is false and foolish according to romans) will not stop him from judging you for your sins.

italo:

The guy amazes me, to say the least. Same response to every question.

Q. Is Atheist North Korea better than Religious Nigeria to live in?

Mazaje: Which of the many gods?

Q. Is it rational to assert something without evidence?

Mazaje: Which of the many gods?

Q. Where do you live?

Mazaje: Which of ..........?

Does he read before posting at all?

Italo; you claim that atheist countries are good, what about your atheist North Korea that is backwards and full of suffering?

Logicboy; yes, Nrth Korea is atheistic but also a communist state. It is the communism that is mostly responible for their woes. Tell me, isnt it true that the only "atheistic" countries with serious problems/instability are those with communist qualities? China, North Korea etc? Why not call South Korea (an exact replica of North Korea without communism)?

Italo; atheist North Korea is bad....bla bla bla



^^^^
How is it possible to have a reasonable communication with someone who wants to bash atheism at all costs?

aManFromMars: This is getting interesting.

Really interesting!

Evil brain & Logicboy: ' I am an Atheist.'

Evil Brain & Logicboy: 'Atheism is disbelief in God.'

Evil Brain & Logicboy: 'I believe God possibly exists. '

LMAO!

Now does any other Atheist want to switch sides like them before it's too late?