Deep Sight:
Any person who thinks that debates between atheistic positions and theistic positions are about "winning" is a very sorry soul. Such a soul has yet to ponder the poignance of its existence in the first place.

As a dear atheist friend of mine on this forum said [Jayriginal], God cannot be argued into or out of existence. If it exists, no amount of arguments will kill it. If it does not exist, no amount of arguments will create it.

Callotti: Of course we are winning.
We used to be silent. . .but not anymore.
God bless J-America.
Forget Nigeria. . .Animals will have the rights to phock humans before human rights are respected in the whole of Africa kpa-kpa!

Freedom of choice!!!

What do I consider as winning?
. . .
-making more atheists from religious people
. . .

logicboy:


Like an arrogant douchebag,

you didnt ask about the parameters of winning. What do I consider as winning?

-making religious people have doubts and critically think about their religion

-making more atheists from religious people

-Making better arguments than theists.

emöfine2: The arguments here more often than not are solely aimed to provoke thus the frequency of collision which some are now trying to avoid in what several see as a futile and tedious exercise.

I don’t see why there should be disharmony due to our various beliefs or lack of nor should it even be a competition.



Hmm the evangelical atheist?

Deep Sight:


Atheism does not do this. It rather makes many religionists retreat further and deeper into their faith. The fundamental premise of atheism is a notion that mosts theists will never take seriously, and quite right so.

What rather acheives the above is not atheism, but healthy, open minded criticism which is definitely not militantly or evangelically atheist.

How is this a good thing?

I say with firm certitude to you sir: that there is not one single atheistic argument that rhymes with common sense or accords with science.

logicboy:

A theist has one more reason to murder than an atheist. God.

What is open minded discussion/criticism? You theists can claim that anything is blasphemy. Try and discuss slavery in the bible/koran which is factual with theists and you would get 3 sets of people;

a) religious people who will discuss the matter
b) religious people who will call you a blashpeming idiot
c) religious people that will murder you

Why are most respected scientists atheists?

logicboy:


Like an arrogant douchebag, you didnt ask about the parameters of winning. What do I consider as winning?

-making religious people have doubts and critically think about their religion
-making more atheists from religious people
-Making better arguments than theists.

Any of these 3 would suffice

Deep Sight:

This is false. God has never been a reason for anybody's acts of murder. Greed and power in the name of religion rather are.



Reflecting on this only shows that the common denominator (religion) is not the problem. If it were, why do you have category A in your above?



Don't make general claims, produce statistics. Besides if most scientists in Norway for example are agnostic, that would largely be because most of the population is agnostic anyway. Nothing special there.

Jenwitemi: Why the insultive word, though? Is that another sign of atheists winning theological debates?

logicboy:

1) What about crusaders? Warriors of God? Executioner or God? Blashpemy laws to execute for insulting God? Why are you in denial?

3) America is a religious country with 83% religious people while in the National academy of Science has 72.2% atheists. Explain that

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/1998/08/25/science-academy-godless
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States#Christianity

Deep Sight:

Nothing to do with God. Greed, Power and empire building are your answers.



Scientists don't exist only in the United States, do they? Anyhow that is actually beside the point. You sought to show that "converting" more atheists is a good thing. How does your statistic show that to be a good thing? Are the scientists who are atheist, by that reason alone, better people and better human beings than their theist compatriots?

Deep Sight: You speak about processes such as photosynthesis, adaptation, etc. That misses the point because the question of God's existence is about how the matter and energy that led to these processes exist in the first place? Do they magically pop out of nothingness? Is that scientific?

When you say that religion has an invesrse relationship to intelligence, I think thats is a presumption, and a high-handed one at that. I disagree: Geniuses the world over are often deeply religious people. I mean you cannot look at people of outstanding accomplishment globally and think that the fact that they are religious renders them less intelligent. Its a fallacy. Very soon you will be telling us that Barack Obama is less intelligent on account that he is a person of religious faith?

Atheism is NOT scientific. The fact that many scientists may be atheists does nothing to make atheism scientific. Infact, as I said earlier, atheism is anti-thetical to every known scientific canon. Scientific laws thoroughly negate the premises of atheism. As far as science is concerned, the laws of motion, laws of cause and effect, all tie up with the experiments of Loius Pasteur which show, up till date, that life only comes from pre-existing life

Arguing the contrary will amount to toeing the long discreditted perspective of spontaenous generation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_generation

As such, atheism is indeed eminently unscientific.

musKeeto: And this is coming from logicboy who on another claimed Israel is in Europe... a waste of time and internet connection..

logicboy:


1) You can feel free with arguing with hard evidence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence
Religion and intelligence do not go hand in hand. It is not to say that all religious people are idiots. It is just saying that you are less likely to believe in God if you are of a higer IQ.

Obama is not a perfect example of intelligence. Many others went to harvard and became president. Bush did and was he smart? Obama is smart but not your best example

2) Are you saying that the scientists who understand the big bang are not thinking when they choose to be atheists?

As for the dark matter and big bang mumbo jumbo, can you show me a scientist that will say that it proves creationism or God?

Deep Sight:

You need to understand that believing in God is not the same thing as being Religious. Alot of people who believe in God are entirely non-religious.

It is false to say that a higher IQ creates a greater likelihood of being an atheist.



What has Havard got to do with this? Why are you shying away by introducing Havard or even the presidency. I mentioned neither. I mentioned only a man, Barack Obama, and his faith. By your own attestation, you had said that no creationist can be intelligent: that was your statement, was it not? Barack is a creationist, and you admit he is very intelligent indeed: so your initial boast simply has been put to sleep, period.



Yes.

And by the way, there is no scientist on this planet who understands the big b.ang. Knowledge about it is scanty, and still very much being researched.



You are getting distracted by something, is there a se.xy secretary in your office strutting about? Lol, I never mentioned these. I simply drew your attention to the fact that scientifically, it is proven that life only comes from pre existing life. That is very solidly scientifically proven. Suppositions to the contrary are not proven: they are speculations. This renders the position of the theist in line with proven science.

Thus, atheism is unscientific.

PS: Is Israel also 'politically' in North America?

logicboy:


Well, if life comes from life, then God has to come from another life. Endless cycle? Or am I wrong?

Does isreal partake in North American trade agreements? Does it partake in North American sporting events?

Isreal is in the European champions league for a reason

Deep Sight:

Of course that is true of all life we have observed in this realm.

This can only mean that there is a pre-existent life.

That pre-existent life which is the cause we refer to is intangible and thus eternal.

Material life is tangible and thus not eternal.




Gotcha. Don't even know the discussion you guys were referring to. Can you give me the link?


I will look for the link for the discussion.

As for material and intangibel lives, you should know that I will never believe in an intangible life since I am an atheist

Blackteeth: Now I suspect logicboy to be a theist or an atheist who has long accepted the truth. I guess he is just playing arround and pretendind to be an atheists.

musKeeto: @DeepSight: https://www.nairaland.com/913787/5-things-that-turn-christians/4#10639520
Get ready to be really disappointed..

Deep Sight:
I have read the link and I must say it was glaring from the context of the first usage that our logicboy did indeed think Israel is in Europe. Funny enough, the subsequent excuses, such as Trade Agreements and Sports, are actually economic matters. As far as political alliances go, the United States, as you mentioned, is actually Israel's cheif allied party in International Politics.

Deep Sight:
I have read the link and I must say it was glaring from the context of the first usage that our logicboy did indeed think Israel is in Europe. Funny enough, the subsequent excuses, such as Trade Agreements and Sports, are actually economic matters. As far as political alliances go, the United States, as you mentioned, is actually Israel's cheif allied party in International Politics.

logicboy:

Google is your friend. It's your choice to be ignorant.